CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/sonarqube-maintainability-gate

Use when a team wants maintainability and technical-debt ratings to gate PRs, or a SonarQube project reports numbers nobody tied to a gate. Runs SonarQube or SonarCloud on production code for code smells, bugs and maintainability ratings, the maintainability view rather than security.

Quality

88%

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

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

82%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.

A tight, highly actionable single-file skill: every step ships copy-paste-ready config, commands, or CI YAML, and the anti-patterns table adds real judgment. The main gaps are minor — a few lines of background Claude could infer, an implicit rather than explicit error-recovery loop, and a slightly redundant reference list.

Suggestions

Trim the enumeration of the four Clean Code attributes in the intro and the test-code conventions rationale in Step 2 — both restate knowledge Claude already has and are the only padding keeping conciseness from a 5.

Add an explicit feedback loop after Step 5 (e.g., 'If the gate is RED: review New Issues on the dashboard, fix them or mark Accepted with a waiver, then re-run the scan') so error recovery is a sequenced checkpoint rather than an anti-pattern note.

Deduplicate the References section — [Issues introduction] and [Sonar Way QG] point to the same URL; cite it once to remove the navigation ambiguity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense tables and executable config, but the opening enumeration of "four Clean Code attributes (*Consistent, Intentional, Adaptable, Responsible*)" and the Step 2 rationale that "test code has different quality expectations (long names, deliberate duplication for clarity, Arrange-Act-Assert patterns)" restate knowledge Claude already has. This matches the 4 anchor (efficient with minor over-explanation that could be trimmed) rather than 5, and is well above 3 since there is no padded tutorial prose.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides a complete `sonar-project.properties` block, copy-paste `sonar-scanner` commands with `-Dsonar.pullrequest.*` flags for both local and CI scans, and a ready GitHub Actions YAML using `SonarSource/sonarqube-scan-action@v3` and `sonarqube-quality-gate-action@v1`. Fully executable commands cover the common cases (local scan, PR decoration, gate enforcement), matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–5 are clearly sequenced (install scanner → scope config → run scan → read dashboard → CI gate) with an explicit validation checkpoint ("fails the build if it's RED", "any condition fail blocks merge") and recovery guidance in the anti-patterns table ("mark all pre-existing as 'Accepted'" with a waiver template). It falls short of the 5 anchor because the fail→fix→re-scan feedback loop is implied via anti-patterns rather than spelled out as an explicit workflow step, but is above 3 since a real gate-check checkpoint exists.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so this is a single-file skill of ~125 lines with clear section headers and a References section pointing one level deep to external SonarSource docs. Structure and placement are good, matching the 4 anchor; it is not 5 because the under-50-lines simple-skill exception does not apply and the reference list has a minor blemish — "[Issues introduction]" and "[Sonar Way QG]" both resolve to the identical URL yet are presented as two separate sources.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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 description: it pairs an explicit two-scenario 'Use when' trigger with a concrete statement of what the skill does, and explicitly separates the maintainability lens from security scanning to avoid mis-triggering. The only improvement space is broader synonym coverage (e.g., the phrase 'quality gate').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions — "Runs SonarQube or SonarCloud on production code for code smells, bugs and maintainability ratings" and gating PRs on those ratings — matching the 4 anchor (several specific actions, minor gaps). Not 5 because coverage is incomplete (no hint of the scoping config, dashboard reading, or CI gate setup the skill actually delivers); well above 3 since more than 1–2 actions are stated.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both parts: "Use when a team wants maintainability and technical-debt ratings to gate PRs, or a SonarQube project reports numbers nobody tied to a gate" gives two concrete trigger scenarios, and "Runs SonarQube or SonarCloud on production code for code smells, bugs and maintainability ratings" states the what. This matches the 5 anchor (clear, explicit what AND when with concrete trigger phrases).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "SonarQube", "SonarCloud", "maintainability", "technical-debt", "code smells", "gate PRs" — terms a user with this need would actually say. Matches the 4 anchor; falls short of 5 because common variations like the exact phrase "quality gate", "code quality", and "tech debt" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with explicit disambiguation — "the maintainability view rather than security" carves out the overlap with security-scanning skills, and the SonarQube/SonarCloud + technical-debt framing is unmistakable. Matches the 5 anchor (distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk); the only neighboring candidate (4) would require unresolved overlap with a closely related skill, which the explicit carve-out resolves.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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

On this page