CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

external-control-api

规划或实现面向外部 agent / Claw 的稳定控制 API,优先做底层分层、query/command 收口、runtime 串行化与契约文档,而不是零散补接口

58

Quality

66%

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 ./.cursor/skills/external-control-api/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, actionable planning skill with concrete paths, commands, and endpoints, a clear sequenced workflow, and good organization. It could improve by adding an explicit validation feedback loop for destructive runtime/world mutations and trimming a few explanatory sentences.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Content is mostly lean with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; it relies on actionable lists and specific paths. A few explanatory sentences ('本技能的目标不是...', '这类动态读取主要是为了...') could be trimmed, matching anchor 4. Not a 5 due to these minor over-explanations; not a 3 because there is no real padding.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: specific file paths (src/server/api/public_v1/query.py), named commands (set_long_term_objective, avatar/create), endpoints (GET /api/v1/query/runtime/status), and test commands (pytest, npm run type-check). Matches anchor 4's 'concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. Not a 5 because it lacks full executable code examples for building the API itself.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced multi-step workflow (梳理现状 → 定边界 → 先做底盘再做接口) with upfront validation checks in '首先检查什么' and a verification/test section. Matches anchor 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. Not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-then-fix-then-retry feedback loop for the runtime/world mutations involved.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (适用场景, 推荐工作流, 代码改动建议, Claw 最小模板, etc.) with no nested references and all content appropriately placed inline; the file references that appear are project docs to sync, not skill-bundle navigation. Matches anchor 4. Not a 5 because, at ~180 lines, content is not split across one-level-deep reference files.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 specific and distinct, naming a clear niche and several concrete priorities, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and limits trigger-term quality to jargon-heavy coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete user trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when designing an external control API for Claw/agent automation, restructuring query/command boundaries, or planning runtime mutation serialization').

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms a user might actually say (e.g., 'external API', 'agent automation', 'control interface') rather than relying on domain jargon.

Frame the listed priorities as concrete capabilities to push specificity toward a comprehensive 5-anchor coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete priorities (底层分层, query/command 收口, runtime 串行化, 契约文档), matching anchor 4's 'several specific actions; minor gaps'. Not a 5 because the actions are framed as priorities rather than a comprehensive capability list.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (规划或实现面向外部 agent / Claw 的稳定控制 API) but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so 'when' is only weakly implied. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant technical terms (外部 agent / Claw, 控制 API, query/command, runtime) but lacks natural synonyms or common variations a user might phrase, fitting anchor 3. Not a 4 because keyword coverage is narrow and jargon-heavy rather than broadly natural.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The external-control-API / Claw niche is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against general API-design skills, matching anchor 4. Not a 5 because it could still overlap with broader API-planning skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
4thfever/cultivation-world-simulator
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.