CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pre-action-interceptors

Use when a tool error begins with "INTERCEPTOR:", a sent message was silently hedged or rewritten, or the user asks about active guards or blocked actions. Not for ordinary tool errors.

57

Quality

67%

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 ./skills/pre-action-interceptors/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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, well-structured instruction-only skill: it documents a novel system with concrete examples, named tools, and unambiguous follow-through guidance, and stays within a single appropriately-sized file. Its only weaknesses are minor — some repetition of the 'this is intentional' point and a couple of unspecified edge cases in the directive-following workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is compact and adds only novel information (the interceptor system, built-in names, RPC endpoints) that Claude could not already know, but the intentionality point is restated three times ('They are not bugs in the tool', 'that is not a failure', 'This is intentional; do not reverse it') — minor over-explanation that could be trimmed to one statement. Anchor 5 requires every token to earn its place with no such repetition.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, actionable guidance throughout: a literal directive example with tool and args, named tools (memory_search, deep_recall, memory_status), the guards.status RPC, and explicit follow instructions ('run the named tool first, then re-evaluate'). Minor gaps remain, e.g., what to do when the prerequisite call returns nothing or the directive names an unknown tool, so it falls short of the fully-covering anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The core workflow is clearly sequenced — recognize the INTERCEPTOR: prefix, run the named prerequisite tool, re-evaluate the original action, proceed without commentary — and the skill is non-destructive so no validation cap applies. The re-evaluation step lacks an explicit decision checkpoint for when the original action no longer applies, keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and its content is organized into clear, well-ordered sections (Reading a directive, Built-in interceptors, Observability) with no inlined material that belongs in separate files. Per the simple-skill guideline, this matches the top anchor.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 has excellent trigger engineering — a distinctive exact-match token, multiple natural trigger phrases, and an explicit negative boundary. However, it is purely a 'when' clause: it never tells the reader what the skill does, which caps completeness at the low end despite strong distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Open with a brief 'what' clause stating the skill's purpose, e.g., 'Explains and governs behavior of the deterministic pre-action interceptor system...', before the 'Use when' triggers.

Mention the core capability actions in the description (interpreting INTERCEPTOR directives, complying with prerequisite requirements, not reverting calibrated rewrites) so 'what' and 'when' are both explicit.

Add one or two natural synonym triggers (e.g., 'guardrail fired', 'tool call was blocked') to broaden keyword coverage beyond the exact 'INTERCEPTOR:' token.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain with concrete, recognizable signals ("tool error begins with 'INTERCEPTOR:'", "silently hedged or rewritten", "active guards", "blocked actions") but lists no capability actions. It sits above anchor 2 (generic domain-only) yet below anchor 4, which requires several specific actions to be enumerated.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and multi-triggered, but the 'what' is entirely absent — the description never states what the skill actually does (e.g., explaining or handling the interceptor system). This matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what') and cannot reach anchor 3, which requires a clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include the exact-match token 'INTERCEPTOR:' plus natural phrases like 'active guards', 'blocked actions', and 'hedged or rewritten' that a user or operator would plausibly echo. Coverage is good but missing common synonyms or variations (e.g., 'guardrail', 'tool blocked', 'message changed'), keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'INTERCEPTOR:' error prefix is a unique, unmistakable trigger, and the explicit exclusion 'Not for ordinary tool errors' fences off the nearest overlapping domain. Clear niche with minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
Bitterbot-AI/bitterbot-desktop
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.