CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

client-methods

Client method surface rules. Use when wiring browser/client code to actions, application state, framework routes, app APIs, uploads, auth, or settings.

63

Quality

76%

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 ./.agents/skills/client-methods/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable rule skill: concrete imports, signatures, paths, and do/don't examples with a clear decision sequence and a real one-level-deep reference. It is held back only slightly by a few rationale sentences and implicit rather than explicit validation framing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: a compact needs-to-method table, concrete do/don't code blocks, and specific path guidance, with no padding about what fetch or React Query are. A few rationale sentences ("gives the UI, docs, and future agents one stable contract") are mild explanation that could be trimmed but largely earn their place.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides a copy-paste-ready needs→import table, a concrete callAction signature with options (method, signal, timeoutMs), specific placement paths, a real positive vs negative code example, and enumerated test categories — fully executable guidance covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The "How" section is a clear three-step decision sequence (find existing API → add narrowest helper → teach the helper), and step 2 names a concrete verification checkpoint ("Add focused tests for URL construction, headers, response parsing, error shape..."). It is not a destructive/batch operation so the cap does not apply, but validation is implied via tests rather than an explicit validate-then-proceed loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections (Rule, Why, How, Exceptions, Don't, Related Skills, References) are well-organized, and the single reference references/legacy-client-fetch-audit-2026-06-03.md is real, clearly signaled, and exactly one level deep. The core method table lives inline, which is appropriate for an overview, leaving only minor organization headroom toward the top anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 pairs a concise domain statement with an explicit, trigger-rich "Use when" clause, giving it strong completeness and low conflict risk. Its main weakness is that the capability phrasing leans on one abstract action ("wiring") across many surfaces rather than enumerating distinct concrete actions.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract "surface rules" framing with one or two concrete verbs describing what the skill does (e.g., "Route browser/client calls through named client methods/hooks instead of raw fetch").

Add a couple of natural user-side synonyms (e.g., "REST calls", "API calls", "fetch requests") to broaden trigger coverage.

Sharpen the "what" so it reads as a concrete action rather than a rule label, which would lift completeness toward the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Client method surface rules" names the domain and the "Use when wiring browser/client code to actions, application state, framework routes, app APIs, uploads, auth, or settings" clause lists several concrete surfaces, but the action vocabulary is essentially a single one ("wiring") applied across surfaces rather than multiple distinct concrete actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

It states a clear "what" ("Client method surface rules") and an explicit, multi-trigger "Use when..." clause; the "what" is slightly terse/abstract compared to the concrete-action anchor at 5, so it sits just below the top level.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural developer-facing triggers like "browser/client code", "actions", "application state", "framework routes", "app APIs", "uploads", "auth", and "settings" give good keyword coverage; a few common synonyms or phrasings users might say are absent, so it stops short of comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The client-method/route-boundary niche is mostly distinct with explicit surface triggers, but there is minor overlap risk with closely related frontend skills (actions, context-awareness, real-time-sync).

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
BuilderIO/agent-native
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.