CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cerebro-creation

Implement focused Cerebro issues or PR follow-ups. Use for bug fixes, review feedback, and small scoped features in this repo.

66

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete commands, clear paths, an explicit validation step, and well-signaled one-level references. Its only gap is the absence of an explicit validation-failure feedback loop, which keeps workflow clarity and actionability at 4 rather than 5.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop after step 5: if `make changed-check` fails, fix the reported issues and re-run until it passes before proceeding.

Optionally include a short worked example of a typical small change (path + test + validation command) to lift actionability toward fully copy-paste-ready coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line is actionable instruction, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor; not 4 because there are no instances of over-explanation to trim.

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands ('make changed-check', 'make verify') and concrete paths ('internal/', 'apps/', 'sources/', 'crates/'); not 5 because as a process skill it lacks worked code examples covering common cases, not 3 because guidance is executable rather than pseudocode or vague hints.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence includes an explicit validation step (step 5) plus stop-condition checkpoints; not 5 because there is no explicit 'if validation fails, fix and re-run' feedback loop, not 3 because validation checkpoints are present rather than absent.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and one-level-deep, clearly signaled references to [CLAUDE.md] and [docs/engineering/non-goals.md]; per the simple-skill guideline this earns a 5 with just well-organized sections, and there are no nested references to penalize it.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 pairs a concrete 'what' with an explicit 'Use for' trigger clause, with a distinct Cerebro/repo niche. It scores solidly across all dimensions but lacks the synonym-rich trigger coverage needed for top marks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions ('Implement focused Cerebro issues or PR follow-ups', 'bug fixes, review feedback, and small scoped features'), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; not 5 because 'implement focused issues' is somewhat abstract, not 3 because more than 1-2 actions are listed.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Implement focused Cerebro issues or PR follow-ups') and when ('Use for bug fixes, review feedback, and small scoped features'); not 5 because it lacks the synonym-rich trigger phrasing of the 5 anchor, not 3 because the 'Use for' trigger guidance is explicit rather than weakly implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'bug fixes', 'review feedback', and 'small scoped features' are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage; not 5 because common synonyms/extensions are missing, not 3 because coverage is clearly stronger than a single generic keyword.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Cerebro' term and 'this repo' scoping carve a clear niche, but generic triggers like 'bug fixes' create minor overlap risk with general coding skills; not 5 because of that residual overlap, not 3 because the Cerebro/repo framing is clearly more distinct than a broad skill.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
writer/cerebro
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.