CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

deep-module-refactor

Explore a codebase to find opportunities for architectural improvement, focusing on making the codebase more testable by deepening shallow modules. Use when user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more AI-navigable.

64

Quality

78%

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/deep-module-refactor/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 concise and well-structured with a clear numbered workflow and concrete tool guidance, but it is undermined by a missing REFERENCE.md bundle file and by a destructive GitHub-issue-creation step that lacks any validation checkpoint.

Suggestions

Add the missing REFERENCE.md (or create a references/ directory containing it) so the three in-body links resolve; broken references are the largest single drag on the score.

Insert a validation checkpoint before Step 7's `gh issue create` — e.g., render the RFC from the template, confirm the title/body with a quick self-check or dry run, then create — so the outward-facing write is guarded.

Add one concrete worked example of a sub-agent interface design output (signature + usage example) so the Step 5 guidance is copy-paste-ready rather than only described.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids padding; the Ousterhout definition is the skill's conceptual core rather than generic knowledge Claude already has.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present (specific Agent tool usage, subagent_type, four distinct parallel sub-agent briefs, `gh issue create`), but no copy-paste examples and the interface-design outputs are described abstractly rather than exemplified.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven well-sequenced steps with user checkpoints, but Step 7 creates a GitHub issue (an outward-facing operation) with no validation checkpoint and explicitly instructs skipping user review, capping the score per the destructive-operation guideline.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a lean overview that signals one-level-deep references to REFERENCE.md three times, but REFERENCE.md does not exist and no references directory is present, so the bundle structure is broken.

2 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

A strong, third-person description that clearly pairs a concrete 'what' with explicit 'when' trigger phrases and occupies a distinctive niche. It could push specificity higher by naming more discrete operations rather than goal-level actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions ('find opportunities', 'consolidate tightly-coupled modules', 'make a codebase more AI-navigable'), but the actions are somewhat goal-shaped rather than discrete operations like 'fill forms'.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does (explore the codebase, surface friction, propose refactors) and when to use it via multiple concrete 'Use when...' trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural phrases a user would say ('improve architecture', 'refactoring opportunities', 'consolidate tightly-coupled modules', 'more AI-navigable'), though 'deepening shallow modules' is jargon and some synonyms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The deep-module / testability / AI-navigability framing is a distinct niche unlikely to collide with generic refactoring skills, with minimal conflict risk.

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
zebbern/claude-code-guide
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.