create-status-provider
Add a new section to the agent status output (agent status command)
62
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/create-status-provider/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 narrow and task-specific but lacks critical elements: there is no 'Use when...' clause, the capabilities are described only at a high level (a single action), and trigger term coverage is limited. It would be difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill from a large pool because the description doesn't clearly articulate when it should be used or what specific modifications it enables.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to extend, customize, or add new sections to the agent status command output.'
Expand the capability description with more concrete actions, e.g., 'Adds new data sections, custom metrics, or informational panels to the agent status command output. Handles formatting, data sourcing, and integration with existing status sections.'
Include natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'agent status', 'status output', 'customize status', 'extend status command', 'add status section'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names a specific action ('Add a new section') and a specific domain ('agent status output'), but describes only one action and lacks detail about what kind of sections or what the skill actually does beyond that. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | It partially answers 'what' (add a new section to agent status output) but has no explicit 'when' clause or trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also quite thin, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'agent status' and 'agent status command' which a user might reference, but misses common variations and broader context terms. The parenthetical '(agent status command)' helps but coverage is limited. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'agent status output' and 'agent status command' is fairly specific to a particular feature, reducing broad conflicts, but the description is vague enough that it could overlap with other agent-related or status-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill with a clear workflow for adding status providers to the Datadog Agent. Its main weakness is the lack of inline executable code examples—it delegates heavily to reading reference files rather than providing concrete Go code snippets or template examples directly. The reference file table is a good organizational choice but would be stronger if supplemented by bundle files containing key patterns.
Suggestions
Add a concrete Go code snippet showing a minimal provider struct implementation and its constructor, so Claude doesn't have to fully rely on reading reference files at runtime.
Include an example `.tmpl` template (even a minimal one) inline or in a bundle file to make the template creation step more actionable.
Consider providing bundle files with extracted patterns from the referenced files (e.g., a minimal provider skeleton) to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It assumes Claude knows Go, embedding, and general programming concepts. Every section serves a purpose—no unnecessary explanations of what status providers are conceptually or how Go modules work. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete reference file paths and a specific build/lint command, but lacks executable code examples—no actual Go code snippets for the provider struct, template content, or registration pattern. It relies on Claude reading reference files rather than providing copy-paste-ready templates. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with a logical progression from gathering requirements through implementation to verification. Step 5 includes explicit build and lint verification commands, providing a validation checkpoint before completion. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references specific files in the codebase as examples (good), but no bundle files are provided to support these references. The reference table is well-organized, but without actual bundle files containing templates or example code, Claude must discover patterns entirely from the codebase at runtime. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- DataDog/datadog-agent
- Commit
0f36ad4
- 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.