CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

top-cost-drivers

Use when identifying where cloud spend is concentrated — which services, accounts, teams, or regions are driving the most cost — to prioritize optimization efforts

59

Quality

74%

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/top-cost-drivers/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 well-structured, actionable procedure with concrete tool calls, clear step sequencing, and properly signaled external references. Its main cost is token weight: heavily repeated query blocks and overlapping patterns/tips sections inflate the body where a dimension reference table plus a couple of canonical examples would carry the same information.

Suggestions

Collapse the twelve near-identical get_cost_data blocks in Steps 2-3 into one canonical example plus a small table mapping dimension (service, account, cloud provider, region) to its FQDID — that alone would remove roughly 60 lines without losing any information.

Move the 'Common Analysis Patterns', 'Advanced Techniques', and detailed output-format templates into a reference file linked from the body, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview with the query pattern and output summary.

Add an explicit sanity checkpoint after Step 2 (e.g., verify returned item count against the limit before computing contribution percentages, so truncated results aren't reported as complete totals).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is operational rather than explanatory — it doesn't teach concepts Claude already knows — but it is noticeably repetitive: Steps 2 and 3 present twelve nearly identical get_cost_data blocks that differ only in the group_by dimension, and the 'Common Analysis Patterns', 'Tips', and 'Best Practices' sections restate combinations already shown. This fits anchor 3 ("Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened") better than anchor 4, since a dimension-to-FQDID table could replace most of the query blocks.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready tool invocations with exact parameters (group_by FQDIDs, cost_type, limit, filters with ! and & operators) cover the common cases, and the output format section gives a concrete table schema. It falls short of anchor 5 only in that Step 6's percentage/cumulative calculations are described as a numbered list rather than shown as the mandated Python script, and the prerequisite skill's loading is directed but not shown — minor gaps per anchor 4.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence runs from request clarification through querying, breakdown, calculation, and optional trend context, with four named analysis patterns for orientation. This is read-only analysis with no destructive or batch operations, so the validation-cap does not apply; it sits at anchor 4 ("Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps") rather than 5 because there are no explicit result-sanity checkpoints (e.g., confirming the limit wasn't truncated before computing percentages).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist in this skill (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), and the body leans on clearly-signaled, one-level-deep plugin references in the 'See Also' section (best-practices.md, cloudzero-tools-reference.md, error-handling.md, dimensions-reference.md, cost-types-reference.md) plus one inline pointer in Best Practices. Section headers are clean and navigation is easy, matching anchor 4; it misses anchor 5 because substantial inline material (four analysis patterns, advanced techniques, and the detailed output-format templates) would sit more appropriately in reference files given the body's ~330 lines.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 solid description with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger, natural phrasing, and a well-defined niche in cloud cost analysis. Its main weakness is that the capability statement is thin — it gestures at identifying concentration and prioritizing optimization but omits the ranking, multi-dimensional breakdown, and 80/20 analysis that define the skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("cloud spend") and the analysis dimensions ("services, accounts, teams, or regions") but only names 1-2 actions — "identifying where cloud spend is concentrated" and "prioritize optimization efforts" — with no mention of the ranking, multi-dimensional breakdown, or 80/20 analysis the skill actually performs. This matches anchor 3 ("Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive") rather than anchor 4, which expects several specific listed actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and strong ("Use when identifying where cloud spend is concentrated..."), but the "what" is folded into the trigger clause rather than stated as a capability — the skill's actual behavior ("identifies and ranks the highest cloud cost contributors") is only implied. Anchor 5 requires both what and when explicitly with concrete trigger phrases; anchor 4 ("Has both 'what' and 'when'; 'when' could be more explicit") is the best fit since the when here is actually more explicit than anchor 4's example while the what is weaker.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "where cloud spend is concentrated", "driving the most cost", and "prioritize optimization" are terms users would realistically say, and the dimension enumeration adds matching surface. Common synonyms the body itself uses ("biggest costs", "most expensive", "top spending") are absent from the description, keeping it just short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Cloud cost concentration analysis with named dimensions is a clear niche with distinct triggers, minimizing conflict risk. Minor overlap remains with closely related cost skills in the same family (e.g., cost trends, allocation/chargeback analysis, general cost Q&A), which matches anchor 4 ("Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills") rather than anchor 5's minimal-conflict bar.

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.