CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cost-spike-investigation

Use when a cost spike or unexpected increase has already been identified and you need to find which service, account, or resource is responsible

64

Quality

80%

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 ./plugins/cost-analyst/skills/cost-spike-investigation/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.

A strong, highly actionable investigation guide: concrete tool-call examples at every step, a clear stepwise workflow, and a defined output format. Its only real gaps are the absence of explicit validation/error-recovery checkpoints and minor token savings available in the redundant trigger section and generic best practices.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Query blocks are compact and each step earns its tokens with no concept-explainer padding, but the "When to Use" section duplicates the frontmatter description and best practices like "Be specific" or "Show your work" could be trimmed, leaving minor instances of over-explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete get_cost_data/get_dimension_values/get_available_dimensions calls with real parameters (dimension names, filters, limits) appear throughout, including a fully dated worked example, and the set covers the common cases — provider, service, account, multi-dimensional, time-series, new-resource, and tag analysis.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence runs from spike-period definition through drill-down to a defined report format, with a conditional pivot ("Once you identify the primary dimension... drill deeper"); it lacks explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops, keeping it below the top anchor, though the read-only investigation means no destructive-operation cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with a labeled "See Also" section of one-level-deep, purpose-annotated external references plus one inline pointer in Best Practices; references are mostly clear but not linked at each point of use, and the skill keeps investigation-specific detail (e.g., tool syntax) appropriately in referenced files.

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.

A well-scoped, distinct trigger description with explicit when-guidance and a concrete single-action what. Its main weakness is that it undersells the skill's actual capabilities — baseline comparison, multi-dimensional drill-down, and root-cause reporting are all invisible from the description alone.

Suggestions

Add one or two more concrete actions to the what-clause, e.g. "compare recent spending against a historical baseline and drill down by service, account, and resource to pinpoint the root cause".

Broaden trigger-term coverage with common synonyms users say, such as "spike", "surge", "jump", "spending anomaly", or "why did our bill go up".

Mention the deliverable (a structured root-cause investigation report) so the what-clause states the outcome, not just the intermediate goal of finding the responsible entity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"find which service, account, or resource is responsible" is one concrete action with three targets, matching the anchor for naming a domain with 1-2 actions but not comprehensive coverage; it never mentions the comparison/baseline analysis or root-cause reporting the skill actually performs.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit — an unambiguous "Use when a cost spike or unexpected increase has already been identified" trigger and a clear what ("find which service, account, or resource is responsible") — but the what is a single action and thinner than the fully comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"cost spike" and "unexpected increase" are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage, but common synonyms like "surge", "jump", "spending anomaly", or "billing" are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Use when a cost spike... has already been identified" cleanly scopes this to post-identification investigation (excluding detection/alerting skills), though it sits in a family of cloud cost analysis skills with some overlap risk on generic cost-increase questions.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Cloudzero/cloudzero-claude-marketplace
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.