routing-forms

ChiliPiper-style pre-booking forms that route prospects to the right event type based on their answers.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/scheduling/docs/skills/routing-forms/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

86%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 an exemplary lean spec: tight, well-structured, and immediately actionable, with a crisp rule-evaluation flow. Its only notable gaps are the absence of one complete worked example of a form/rule definition and any validation guidance for edge cases in rule actions.

Suggestions

Add one complete example form definition (fields + a couple of rules + fallback) in the documented JSON shape so a reader can copy it wholesale when invoking create-routing-form.

Specify behavior when a rule's action references a deleted eventTypeId or missing teamId (e.g., skip rule vs. error) to close the main validation gap in the submit flow.

Clarify how ANDed conditions handle empty answers (e.g., a select left blank) so edge cases in the 'in'/'equals' ops are unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is pure specification — compact field/op/action lists, a numbered submit flow, and a two-row task table — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Gives concrete schemas ({conditions, action}, action kinds, operators, endpoint, response table) and runnable commands ('create-routing-form', 'list-routing-form-responses --formId <id>'), but never shows one complete assembled form or rule definition to copy — anchor 4's 'concrete guidance with minor gaps' rather than 5's fully copy-paste-ready coverage.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The submit flow is a clear, unambiguous sequence (ordered rules, 'first match wins', explicit fallback, response recording, prefilled redirect), and the destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply since routing is non-destructive; however, there are no validation or error-recovery checkpoints (e.g., handling a rule whose eventTypeId no longer exists), keeping it at anchor 4.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	At ~35 lines with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no content that warrants splitting, the skill qualifies for the simple-skill exception: well-organized sections alone earn anchor 5.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 concise, appropriately third-person, and clearly names a specific domain with its core capability, but it omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and misses common natural-language synonyms. Adding explicit usage triggers and broader trigger vocabulary would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Append a trigger clause such as: 'Use when the user mentions routing forms, pre-booking forms, lead routing, or routing prospects/leads to the right meeting type.'

Include common synonyms users would actually say — 'lead routing', 'qualify leads', 'booking form', 'form routing' — to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Mention the other core capabilities beyond routing (creating/configuring forms and viewing submissions) so the 'what' is more comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('ChiliPiper-style pre-booking forms') and one concrete action ('route prospects to the right event type based on their answers'), but does not enumerate the broader capability set (creating forms, defining rules, reviewing submissions) that would reach anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' (pre-booking forms that route prospects to event types) but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the judging guidelines state caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant keywords ('pre-booking forms', 'route prospects', 'event type', 'ChiliPiper') but misses common variations users would naturally say, such as 'lead routing', 'qualify leads', 'booking form', or 'form routing', matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is fairly distinct (pre-booking routing forms tied to event types and sales prospects), with only minor overlap risk against generic form or scheduling skills; not anchor 5 because it lacks the explicit trigger phrases that fully separate it.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: BuilderIO/agent-native
Path: packages/scheduling/docs/skills/routing-forms/SKILL.md
Commit: a941a2e

Reviewed: 9 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.