CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

apm-integrations

Create or modify contrib instrumentation, integration registration, manifests, and APM integration tests.

Quality

79%

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 ./.agents/skills/apm-integrations/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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.

The body is an exemplary lean instruction skill: highly concrete project-specific rules with exact paths, signatures, and commands, and a well-organized one-level-deep reference structure. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit step ordering and feedback loop in the validation workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~46-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what ddtrace, wrapt, or contrib are; every line carries project-specific rules such as "The package supports Python 3.9 (`pyproject.toml`)" and "do not introduce `T | None` into such modules merely for style". No padding or over-explanation found, matching the level-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact paths (`ddtrace/contrib/internal/httpx/patch.py`), copy-paste signatures (`patch() -> None`, `wrapped: Callable[..., Any]`, `args: tuple[Any, ...]`), and a runnable command (`scripts/lint typing`). Falls just short of the level-5 anchor because no full worked wrapper example is shown and test execution is delegated to sibling skills rather than given as commands.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

An explicit first step ("Read the affected integration and its tests first"), named validation checkpoints ("Validate through the `lint` skill's typing check", "Use `run-tests`, `lint`, and `releasenote` for validation and PR preparation"), and error-recovery guidance for native build failures. Not 3 because validation is explicitly named rather than implicit; not 5 because the overall step ordering is implicit and there is no validate→fix→retry feedback loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A lean overview with a "Task references" section that signals each of the four real bundle files with a one-line scope description (e.g. "Anti-patterns: patch, configuration, and deferred-event pitfalls"), all one level deep and all verified to exist. Content is appropriately split between the overview and references, matching the level-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 is concrete and domain-specific, clearly stating what the skill does with distinct ddtrace-contrib vocabulary. Its main weakness is the complete absence of any "when to use" trigger guidance, which caps completeness and limits natural trigger-term coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as "Use when changing files under ddtrace/contrib/ or when the user mentions instrumentation, tracing integrations, or APM contrib tests" — the missing 'when' currently caps completeness at 3.

Include natural synonyms users would say, e.g. "tracing", "ddtrace", or "patch/unpatch", alongside "instrumentation" to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Mention the typing/annotation conventions or supported-version maintenance briefly so the 'what' covers the skill's full scope.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Create or modify contrib instrumentation, integration registration, manifests, and APM integration tests" applies two concrete verbs to four specific artifacts, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps in coverage (typing conventions and unpatching from the body are absent). It exceeds the 1-2 concrete actions of the level-3 anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (create/modify instrumentation, registration, manifests, tests), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the "what" is concrete rather than vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "contrib instrumentation", "integration", "manifests", and "APM integration tests" are natural phrasing for this domain, giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations a user might say — "tracing", "ddtrace", "patch" — are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"contrib instrumentation" and "APM integration tests" carve a clear niche with low conflict risk, but "integration" is a broad word and a closely related sibling skill (llmobs-integrations) exists in the same domain, giving minor overlap risk — the level-4 anchor. Not 5 because distinctness relies on the "APM/contrib" qualifiers alone.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

DataDog/dd-trace-py

Path

.agents/skills/apm-integrations/SKILL.md

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.