CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/sonarqube-maintainability-gate

Run SonarQube/SonarCloud against production code to surface Code Smells, Bugs, and Maintainability ratings - the maintainability lens rather than the security lens. Production-only scope via sonar.exclusions; test code is reviewed separately. Use when a team wants maintainability and technical-debt ratings gating PRs, or when an existing SonarQube project reports numbers nobody has tied to a quality gate.

79

Quality

99%

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

100%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, token-efficient skill body with executable code, a clear sequenced workflow including a Quality Gate verification checkpoint, and clean section organization with shallow external references. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean body that assumes Claude's competence — compact tables and code blocks instead of explaining what SonarQube is, with the one explanatory aside (test vs source separation) earning its place as non-obvious domain knowledge.

3 / 3

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: real sonar-project.properties keys, executable sonar-scanner invocations with actual flags, and a concrete GitHub Actions YAML using real action references, plus specific metric thresholds.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequence (Install, Scope, Run, Read dashboard, Gate) with an explicit verification checkpoint — the quality-gate-action polls and fails the build on RED — and an Anti-patterns table giving error-recovery fixes.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into labeled sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled external doc references and no nested bundles; inline content is appropriately scoped for a single cohesive workflow skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 states concrete actions, gives natural trigger terms, and explicitly separates the maintainability lens from the security skill. It clearly answers both what it does and when to use it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('Run SonarQube/SonarCloud against production code', 'surface Code Smells, Bugs, and Maintainability ratings', 'gating PRs') rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (run scanner, surface maintainability metrics) and when via a clear 'Use when...' clause covering PR gating and orphaned SonarQube projects.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Good coverage of natural terms a team would say — 'Code Smells', 'Bugs', 'Maintainability ratings', 'technical-debt', 'quality gate', 'gating PRs' — alongside the tool names.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — 'the maintainability lens rather than the security lens' — and explicit separation from the sibling sonarqube-rules security skill makes a wrong-skill trigger unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents