CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

check-processing

Run a phased processing-workflow audit from UI submit bindings to backend execution: map workflow paths first, then validate parameter, type, and initialization correctness.

55

Quality

63%

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 ./.github/skills/check-processing/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 content is a well-structured, actionable audit playbook with concrete file/function targets, a sequenced procedure, and explicit pass criteria plus fallback reporting. Main weakness is redundancy from re-listing the same files and workflows across multiple sections, which inflates token cost without adding guidance.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the file list: keep 'Primary Files' as the canonical list and reference it from 'Required Workflow Coverage' and 'Procedure' instead of repeating paths.

Make validation checkpoints explicit gates (e.g. 'Do not proceed to reporting until Pass Criteria are met or exclusions are recorded') to tighten the feedback loop.

Consider moving the per-workflow path chains into a short reference table to reduce repeated inline path strings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and free of basic-concept padding, but file paths and workflow lists are repeated across 'Required Workflow Coverage', 'Primary Files', and 'Procedure' step 1, which could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly actionable for an instruction skill: names specific files, functions (process_images, process_diffusers), required table columns, and a structured reporting format with severity tiers and required fields.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step procedure follows an ordered workflow-coverage list, with explicit validation via 'Pass Criteria', a runtime spot-check step, and partial-pass / static-only fallback reporting; minor checkpoints remain implicit rather than hard gates.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained with well-organized sections; the single external reference (.github/instructions/core.instructions.md) is clearly signaled under 'Guidance'.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 clearly states a specific, multi-action audit task with a distinct niche, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and leans on technical jargon over natural user phrases. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with conversational triggers would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a change touches UI submit wiring or processing-class parameters for txt2img/img2img/control/caption/video workflows.'

Add natural synonyms users might say ('check the generation workflow', 'audit processing flow') alongside the technical jargon.

Keep the phased framing but consider naming the covered workflows in the description to sharpen distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('map workflow paths first, then validate parameter, type, and initialization correctness' across 'UI submit bindings to backend execution'), though coverage is narrow to one audit domain rather than comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (a phased audit mapping paths then validating parameters/types/init), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant domain keywords ('processing-workflow audit', 'parameter', 'type', 'initialization') but they are technical jargon; natural user-facing phrases and synonyms (e.g. 'Use when auditing generation flows') are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche ('processing-workflow audit from UI submit bindings to backend execution') is distinct and unlikely to trigger the wrong skill, with only minor overlap risk against generic code-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
vladmandic/sdnext
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.