resolve-slate-issue

Resolve one Slate or Slate v2 GitHub issue end to end, using task-style issue intake plus Slate Plan proof discipline, then post the verified no-PR issue comment with gh.

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/resolve-slate-issue/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%

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

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with strong verification discipline, but it is a monolithic file with repeated rules that could be tightened and split into reference materials for progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the repeated 95%+ confidence and no-PR rules by stating them once in Hard Rules and referencing that section elsewhere.

Move the detailed comment-body template and the common Slate v2 gate commands into reference files (e.g. references/comment-template.md, references/verification-gates.md) linked from the main body to improve progressive disclosure.

Tighten the Hard Rules list by merging near-duplicate constraints (e.g. the three separate 'Do not ... PR' bullets) into a single rule.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is Slate' or 'what is gh' padding) but repeats key rules multiple times (the 95%+ confidence condition appears across Intake, Execution, and Comment Body; the no-PR rule is restated), so it is mostly efficient but could be tightened; not score 3 because not every token earns its place.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands ('gh issue view <number-or-url> -R udecode/slate --json ...', 'bun --filter slate-react typecheck', 'PLAYWRIGHT_BASE_URL=http://localhost:3100 bun playwright <test-file> --project=chromium --grep "<issue row>"') plus a concrete fill-in comment template; not score 2 because the guidance is complete and executable rather than pseudocode.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Sequences a clear multi-step process (Intake -> Current-State Check -> Execution -> Verification -> Comment Body -> Final Handoff) with a four-state classification table, explicit verification checkpoints, a confidence gate, and a feedback loop ('If bun check fails... isolate the failure and record why'); not score 2 because validation checkpoints are explicit and present for the outward-facing commenting/closing actions.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear section headers but it is a single monolithic file with no reference bundles (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent), and detail such as the full comment template and verification gate commands is inline rather than split out; not score 3 because it is neither under 50 lines nor does it use one-level-deep reference files, and not score 1 because the internal structure is good rather than a wall of text.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 concrete and distinct but front-loads internal methodology jargon over natural user trigger terms and omits an explicit 'Use when...' clause, capping completeness and trigger quality at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to resolve, fix, or classify a Slate or Slate v2 GitHub issue and report the result as an issue comment.'

Replace internal jargon ('task-style issue intake', 'Slate Plan proof discipline') with natural trigger phrasing a contributor would actually say, such as 'fix', 'reproduce', 'verify', or 'triage a Slate issue'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions ('Resolve one Slate or Slate v2 GitHub issue end to end', 'task-style issue intake', 'post the verified no-PR issue comment with gh'), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor; it exceeds the score-2 bar of naming only a domain and some actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' (resolve, intake, proof, post comment) but lacks any explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the guideline completeness caps at 2; it is not score 1 because the 'what' is explicit and strong.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some natural terms a Slate contributor would say ('GitHub issue', 'Slate', 'comment', 'gh') but is padded with project-internal jargon ('task-style issue intake', 'Slate Plan proof discipline', 'no-PR issue comment') that users would not naturally say, missing common variations; not score 3 because coverage is diluted by jargon.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'Slate or Slate v2 GitHub issue' with 'verified no-PR issue comment with gh' carves a clear, narrow niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill; it is not score 2 because the triggers are specific rather than merely 'somewhat specific'.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: udecode/plate
Path: .agents/skills/resolve-slate-issue/SKILL.md
Commit: 45116fd

Reviewed: about 13 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.