CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

health

Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability. Use when Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong. Not for application bugs or PR review.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is health in tw93/Waza

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced audit workflow with real executable commands, validation checkpoints, and error-recovery guidance. Its weaknesses are density (long unbroken policy paragraphs) and three inspector file references that do not resolve to real bundle files.

Suggestions

Split the monolithic Security Baseline, Budget posture, and Conversation scope paragraphs into bulleted rules or move the calibration details into a references/ file so the main flow stays scannable.

Ship the missing agents/inspector-context.md, agents/inspector-control.md, and agents/inspector-maintainability.md files in the bundle, or inline their inspection scopes so the deep-audit routing in Step 2 is not a dead reference.

Move the long-running-agent stop-condition and deny-list detail that is only conditionally needed into their already-referenced reference files to cut base-context tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body contains no generic-concept padding, but several ~200-word single-paragraph blocks ("Deny-list floor" with three nested calibrations, "Budget posture", "Conversation scope") are noticeably dense and could be tightened or offloaded. This fits the mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened anchor; it is not 4 because the paragraph walls force re-reading to extract the rules.

3 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready launcher snippets for Windows and Linux/macOS that self-resolve the skill base directory, exact diagnostic commands (check-agent-context.sh, conversation_audit.py invocations), a mandated copy-pasteable "Action:" format, and a worked finding with exact git commands cover the common cases. Not 4: the snippets are complete and executable as written, resolving their own placeholders at runtime.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Step 0 -> 1 -> 1b -> 1c -> 2 -> Output sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (treat "(unavailable)" as insufficient data, wait for every inspector before declaring complete, list unreviewed scope, coverage receipts), a fallback loop ("analyzed locally"), and a Gotchas error-recovery table. This matches the explicit-validation-with-feedback-loops anchor; the read-only posture also avoids the destructive-operation cap.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The three references/*.md links exist, are one level deep, and are well signaled, but the body cites agents/inspector-context.md, agents/inspector-control.md, and agents/inspector-maintainability.md three times and no agents/ directory exists in the bundle. Combined with the large inline security-baseline material, this is more disorganized than the minor-gaps 4 anchor, fitting the some-structure-but-could-be-better-organized anchor.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is a strong example: it names a specific domain and audit areas, states an explicit trigger clause with the runtime names users would say, and closes with clear exclusions that reduce mis-triggering. It only falls short of perfect on action specificity and trigger synonym coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability" names the domain and several concrete audit areas, matching the several-specific-actions anchor. It falls short of 5 because it is a single verb with an object list rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, and above 3 because coverage clearly exceeds 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability") and when ("Use when Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong"), with concrete trigger phrasing plus explicit exclusions ("Not for application bugs or PR review"). This matches the 5 anchor exactly; the 4 anchor applies when the when-clause is weaker or less explicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong" includes natural user phrasing and the product names users actually say. A few natural terms are missing ("agent config", "check config", "MCP broken"), matching the good-coverage-with-minor-gaps anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP... Not for application bugs or PR review" carves out a clear niche (agent-setup health for three named runtimes) with explicit negative boundaries, giving minimal conflict risk with other skills. Not 4: the exclusions make overlap risk smaller than the minor-overlap anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

tw93/Waza

Path

plugins/waza/skills/health/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.