CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

gsd-reapply-patches

Reapply local modifications after a GSD update

Quality

67%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/gsd-reapply-patches/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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.

This is a strong, actionable skill: the three-way merge logic is precisely specified with executable commands, the safety invariant (backed-up files are definitionally modified) is well-enforced through conflict escalation, and the workflow has clear sequencing with a closing checklist. Its weaknesses are repetition — a six-branch copy-pasted detection script and a triple-stated invariant — and the absence of any bundle files, which forces ~90 lines of detection code inline and leaves the backup-meta.json schema unspecified.

Suggestions

Replace the six copy-pasted env-var detection blocks with a single loop over (env var, subdirectory) pairs, or move the detection script into a scripts/ file and reference it from SKILL.md — this fixes both the conciseness and progressive disclosure issues.

Show the expected structure of backup-meta.json (at least the key field names) so Step 4's per-file iteration can be executed exactly as written.

State the 'never conclude no custom content' invariant once (in purpose) and reference it briefly elsewhere; add an explicit post-merge verification step (e.g., diff the merged file against the backup to confirm user changes are present) to close the workflow's validation gap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is mostly efficient domain-specific guidance (no explanations of concepts Claude already knows), but it could be tightened: the ~90-line bash detection block repeats six nearly identical env-var branches that a loop over tool/env pairs would collapse to ~15 lines, and the 'never conclude no custom content' invariant is stated three times (purpose, Step 4 CRITICAL RULE, and the Never-report line). Fits anchor 3 ('Mostly efficient but... could be tightened'), not anchor 4 which requires only minor trims.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: copy-paste-ready bash for patch-directory detection, exact git commands for baseline extraction ('git log --diff-filter=A', 'git show {install_commit}:{file_path}'), explicit merge classification rules, and literal output templates. The minor gap keeping it below anchor 5 is that backup-meta.json's schema is never shown, so Step 4's iteration over it lacks the key names needed to execute precisely.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step numbered sequence with checkpoints appropriate to a batch/destructive operation: a conflict feedback loop (flag both versions and ask the user), per-file status reporting with a summary of what was preserved, and a final success_criteria checklist ('All backed-up patches processed — zero files left unhandled'). Below anchor 5 because there is no explicit post-merge validation step verifying the written file actually contains the user's changes before reporting success.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (purpose / process / success_criteria with numbered steps), and no references are buried. However, the skill is a single file with no bundle: the ~90-line runtime-detection bash block is inline content that clearly belongs in a scripts/ helper, and the merge heuristics could be split into a reference file, which would leave SKILL.md as a lean overview. Fits anchor 3 ('content that should be separate is inline').

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 concise and clearly niche-scoped to GSD updates, but it is a single short sentence that under-sells the skill's actual capabilities (three-way merge, conflict resolution, backup handling) and omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. It reads more like a title than a complete description, which limits discoverability and keyword coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user has run a GSD update and wants their local customizations, patches, or modified workflow files restored.'

Enumerate the concrete capabilities in the description: three-way merge against a pristine baseline, conflict surfacing, and per-file patch reapplication — this raises both specificity and completeness.

Include natural synonyms users would say (restore changes, keep customizations, merge local patches) alongside 'reapply local modifications' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Reapply local modifications after a GSD update" names the domain (GSD updates, local modifications) and one concrete action (reapply), but does not enumerate the actual operations (three-way merge, conflict resolution, patch backup handling). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — below anchor 4, which requires several specific actions, and above anchor 2, which lacks any concrete action.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (reapply local modifications), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; 'when' is only weakly implied by "after a GSD update". Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and anchor 3 ('clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied') is the best fit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "reapply", "local modifications", and "GSD update" are ones a user would plausibly say, but common variations and synonyms ("restore my changes", "keep customizations", "merge patches") are missing. Fits anchor 3 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'), not anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"GSD" carves out a clear niche scoped to a specific tool's update flow, so overlap risk with other skills is minor. However, trigger phrasing is too thin for anchor 5 ('clear niche with distinct triggers'), placing it at anchor 4 ('Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills').

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

valeriibeck-star/claude-skills

Path

skills/gsd-reapply-patches/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.