scheduling-basics

Core concepts of the scheduling package — event types, schedules, bookings, hosts, teams, and how they compose.

Quality

64%

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/scheduling-basics/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

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 efficient, well-structured reference that pairs a mental model with concrete commands and URL routes. Its main gaps are the unspecified execution context for the commands and the absence of validation steps around destructive operations.

Suggestions

State how the listed commands are invoked (e.g. a CLI binary name, MCP tool, or script path) so the tasks table is copy-paste ready.

Add a validation/confirmation checkpoint before destructive actions such as `cancel-booking` (e.g. confirm the matched booking before cancelling).

Fill in the `--from ... --to ...` and `<slug>` placeholders with a concrete example value for at least one row to model correct usage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean: tight bulleted entity definitions, a compact URL list, and a tasks table, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the "Like ChiliPiper" aside earns its place as a brief analogy.	3 / 3
Actionability	The Common tasks table gives concrete flag-level commands (e.g. `create-event-type --title "Intro" --slug intro --length 30`), but entries use placeholders (`<slug>`, `...`) and never state how these commands are actually invoked (CLI? MCP tool? function), leaving them not fully copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step sequences are shown with "then" (e.g. `list-bookings` then `cancel-booking`), but destructive operations like cancel-booking have no validation/verification checkpoint, which per the guidelines caps workflow clarity at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed, and content is well-organized into clear sections (mental model, workflows, public URLs, common tasks), meeting the 'well-organized sections' bar for a 3.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

57%

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 about the scheduling domain and its entities but reads as a concept inventory rather than an action or trigger statement. Adding a 'Use when...' clause and a couple of natural user phrasings would raise completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks about scheduling, bookings, event types, or availability in the scheduling package.'

Include natural user phrasings such as 'calendar', 'appointment', 'meeting', and 'availability' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Lead with a concrete action verb (third person) rather than 'Core concepts' to signal capabilities, e.g. 'Explains and operates the scheduling package...'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and its concrete entities ("event types, schedules, bookings, hosts, teams"), but frames them as "Core concepts" rather than listing concrete actions the skill performs, so it stops short of the multi-action anchor 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill covers (core concepts of the scheduling package and how they compose) but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant natural terms like "scheduling", "bookings", and "event types", but omits common variations a user would say such as "calendar", "appointment", "meeting", or "availability", fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combined references to "the scheduling package", bookings, event types, hosts, and round-robin teams define a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 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/scheduling-basics/SKILL.md
Commit: e9a2f0e

Reviewed: 4 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.