create-status-provider
Add a new section to the agent status output (agent status command)
49
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
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 (adding a section), and it doesn't explain what types of sections or under what circumstances this skill should be selected. It reads more like a task title than a skill description.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to extend or customize the agent status command output with new information sections.'
Expand the 'what' to describe concrete actions, e.g., 'Adds new data sections to the agent status command output, including defining section content, formatting, and registration in the status renderer.'
Include natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'customize status output', 'extend agent status', 'add status info', or 'modify status display'.
| 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 actionability—it directs Claude to read reference files rather than providing inline code templates or examples of the expected output, which means success depends heavily on those reference files being available and clear. The workflow is logical and includes verification steps.
Suggestions
Add a minimal inline Go code example showing the provider struct, constructor, and key methods (e.g., Name(), JSON(), Text(), HTML()) so Claude has a copy-paste-ready starting point even before reading reference files.
Include a small example `.tmpl` template snippet showing the expected format for both plain text and HTML templates to reduce ambiguity.
| 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 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 the skill could benefit from having key patterns extracted into bundle files rather than relying entirely on reading source code 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
a41685a
- 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.