team-scheduling

Team event types, round-robin assignment, collective bookings, host weights, and no-show calibration.

Quality

75%

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/team-scheduling/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

80%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 lean, well-structured reference: tight tables, concrete schemas, and no wasted tokens. The main gaps are incomplete command examples and the absence of any verification step after configuration changes, which holds actionability and workflow clarity below the top anchors.

Suggestions

Complete the command examples with real argument shapes instead of ellipses (e.g. a full 'create-event-type' invocation with a concrete teamId and title) so they are copy-paste ready.

Add a short validation step to the common tasks, such as fetching the event type after 'set-event-type-hosts' to confirm the host list and rotation strategy took effect.

Name the specific API call (or file/script) for inserting an 'out_of_office_entries' row so the PTO task is executable rather than data-level.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and table-driven with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section (types, strategies, hosts, OOO, host groups, common tasks) earns its tokens.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete tool calls and data shapes are given ('create-event-type --schedulingType round-robin --teamId ...', 'set-event-type-hosts', 'set-host-availability-override', 'event_type_hosts' row schema), but commands are elliptical ('--teamId ...') and the OOO task is a raw row insert without an API call, so it is not fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 'Common tasks' table maps requests to first steps and some multi-step sequences are implied (create event type, then set hosts), but no validation or verification checkpoints exist — e.g. nothing confirms the rotation strategy or OOO exclusion actually took effect.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, single-file, and organized into clear well-labeled sections; per the rubric's simple-skill exception, no external references are needed, so this scores 5.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 names a specific niche and concrete capability topics, but it reads as a feature inventory rather than trigger guidance: it lacks a 'Use when...' clause and omits the natural user phrasings that would fire the skill. Adding explicit usage triggers and everyday synonyms would lift the completeness and trigger-term dimensions.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when setting up team event types, rotating bookings across hosts, or configuring collective team availability.'

Include natural user phrasings as trigger terms, such as 'rotate hosts', 'distribute leads/bookings', and 'team availability', alongside the API-flavored terms.

Convert the noun list into actions (e.g. 'Create round-robin event types, assign fixed and weighted hosts, calibrate for no-shows') so the 'what' reads as capabilities rather than a topic index.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several concrete capabilities ('round-robin assignment', 'collective bookings', 'host weights', 'no-show calibration'), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because these are topic nouns rather than stated actions and read/update coverage is implied only.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (team scheduling modes and host configuration), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which the judging guidelines cap at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'Team event types', 'round-robin', and 'collective bookings' are relevant keywords, but common user phrasings like 'rotate hosts', 'team availability', or 'distribute bookings' are missing and terms like 'host weights' and 'no-show calibration' lean on API jargon — the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The team-scheduling niche with terms like 'round-robin assignment' and 'no-show calibration' is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against a generic scheduling/booking skill, but the triggers are not as user-phrase concrete as the anchor-5 example.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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/team-scheduling/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.