CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tessl/memory-curator

Promote the pending facts of a project memory topic into the topic's note.

76

Quality

95%

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

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

96%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.

An exceptionally tight operational skill: every rule is concrete, every failure mode of the CLI has a stated recovery, and the destructive memory-rewrite workflow is fully validated. The only structural nit is that all CLI behavioral detail sits inline in a single ~135-line file rather than being split out.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, rule-driven prose with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. 'promotion.json, checksums of the two, which you can ignore' — and every token carries a non-obvious operational constraint.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact commands ('tessl memory pending --topic <topic> --out-dir <dir>', 'tessl memory save --topic <topic> --file <note file> --note-version <version>'), an exact line format ('- <fact> (<who>, <YYYY-MM-DD>)'), the facts.json shape, and named tool behavior for every refusal case.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The situation ladder gives a sequenced decision procedure, and every risky path has an explicit validation/feedback loop — version mismatch re-runs 'pending' into a new folder, a >48 KB save deletes lines per invariant 8 and saves again, and a save that gets no answer is retried with interpretation of the follow-up refusal. This is a destructive/batch rewrite where dropped lines are gone, yet validation is exhaustively specified, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (What done looks like / Invariants / Environment facts / Judgment) with nothing buried, and no bundle files exist to reference. Not 5 because at ~135 lines the inlined CLI reference in 'Environment facts' could arguably live in a separate reference file, exceeding the simple-skill threshold where section organization alone earns a 5.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 description: concrete, third-person action list paired with an explicit and specific trigger clause tied to the launching job. The only soft spot is trigger-term breadth, which stays within its own narrow domain vocabulary without synonyms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'merge restatements, apply newer facts and retractions, drop what can be checked live, and keep each line attributed and the note under 48 KB, then save the note, which clears the batch' — in third person, with comprehensive coverage of the skill's operations.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (the full promote/merge/apply/drop/save workflow) and 'when' ('Use when Tessl's memory promotion job launches a run for a topic and passes it as the input TOPIC') with a concrete trigger condition.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It names the operative trigger terms ('memory promotion job', 'topic', 'pending facts', 'TOPIC') which are exactly what this context uses, but offers no synonyms or variations a user might phrase differently. Not 5 because coverage is good but not comprehensive with natural alternates; not 3 because the key terms are all present rather than partially missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply distinct — a specific vendor job ('Tessl's memory promotion job') with a specific input ('TOPIC') — so overlap with any other skill's triggers is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Reviewed

Table of Contents