CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

azure-api-review

Shared Azure REST API review rules for OpenAPI (Swagger) and TypeSpec specifications. Contains cross-cutting review guidelines used by ARM API reviewers, code review agents, and CI workflows. USE FOR: reviewing API specs for naming, security, property design, resource lifecycle, and versioning compliance. DO NOT USE FOR: authoring TypeSpec files (use azure-typespec-author), SDK generation, or releasing packages.

60

Quality

71%

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 ./.github/skills/azure-api-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

Excellent progressive disclosure and organization, but the body leans on design philosophy and maintenance rationale over concrete, executable review steps and an explicit review workflow, leaving actionability and workflow clarity at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add a concise, sequenced review workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g., gather spec -> run linter/lro checks -> consult relevant reference rule -> emit finding with rule ID and severity) so SKILL.md is directly actionable, not just a catalog.

Trim the "Design Principles" and "Maintenance & Upstream Alignment" prose to the essentials; the expert-persona rationale and upstream-alignment mechanics spend tokens on context an experienced reviewer already knows.

Surface 1-2 concrete executable cues inline (such as the precedence order as an actionable tie-breaker step, or an example finding format with a rule ID) rather than fully deferring actionability to the reference files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient (tables, terse principles), but sections like the "Design Principles" and "Maintenance & Upstream Alignment" prose spend tokens on philosophy and rationale that an expert reviewer largely already knows, which could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

It catalogs rules and references clearly but the SKILL.md body itself gives no concrete, executable review procedure; the actionable detail is deferred to reference files rather than surfaced as direct instructions in the overview.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The body describes structure and relationships but lacks an explicit multi-step review workflow with validation checkpoints; no sequenced review-and-report process is present in SKILL.md, so sequence is implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A clean overview table signals one-level-deep references, each reference file holds real self-contained content, navigation is organized by rule area, and there is no nested pass-through structure.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

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, specific description with explicit USE FOR / DO NOT USE triggers and good distinctiveness. Trigger terms are accurate but somewhat format-jargon-heavy rather than natural requester phrasing, which is the only weak spot.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete review domains -- "reviewing API specs for naming, security, property design, resource lifecycle, and versioning compliance" -- matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("cross-cutting review guidelines") and when ("USE FOR: reviewing API specification PRs... Building review agents or CI workflows"), with an explicit DO NOT USE boundary.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant terms ("API specs", "OpenAPI", "Swagger", "TypeSpec", "PRs") but relies on format jargon rather than the natural phrases a requester would utter, missing common variations like "review my Swagger" or "check this TypeSpec PR".

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Azure REST API spec review) with a DO NOT USE clause steering authoring/SDK tasks to other skills, making it unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 8 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Azure/azure-rest-api-specs
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.