cascade-fail-recovery

Handle cascading data retrieval tool failures by falling back to embedded knowledge generation

Quality

46%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./benchmarks/gdpval/skills/cascade-fail-recovery/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is well-structured and gives a clear, sequenced recovery procedure with a concrete write_file example, but it has redundancy across sections, a placeholder code example, and no validation checkpoint after the deliverable is written. Progressive disclosure is strong given the skill's self-contained single-purpose scope.

Suggestions

Add a validation/verification step after write_file (e.g. re-read the objective and confirm the document covers the required deliverables before finishing) to lift workflow_clarity.

Tighten redundancy: merge the 'When to Apply', 'Step 1: Recognize', and 'Guidelines' threshold statements so the 2-failure trigger is stated once.

Make the write_file example concrete with a realistic content scaffold and a transparency note template instead of the '[Generate content from internal knowledge base]' placeholder.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and procedural, but 'When to Apply', 'Step 1', and the 'Guidelines' threshold repeat the same 2-failure trigger, and the verbose 'wrong approach' example narrative could be trimmed.	2 / 3
Actionability	It gives a concrete write_file call, but the content argument is a placeholder ('[Generate content from internal knowledge base]') rather than copy-paste-ready, matching the score-2 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The four-step procedure is clearly sequenced, but there is no validation/verification checkpoint after producing the deliverable; the rubric caps file-producing workflows without validation at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	It is a self-contained, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections (Purpose, When to Apply, Procedure, Example, Guidelines, Related Skills) and no nested file references, satisfying the simple-skill carve-out for a clear, well-split overview.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

35%

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 conveys a clear niche and a single concrete action but relies on technical jargon and omits an explicit 'when to use' trigger, weakening trigger-term quality and completeness. It is distinguishable but not maximally distinct from general fallback skills.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with plain-language triggers users actually say, e.g. 'Use when web/search tools keep failing in a row and the task risks being abandoned.'

Replace jargon ('cascading data retrieval tool failures', 'embedded knowledge generation') with natural keywords such as 'repeated tool failures', 'web access errors', and 'generate from internal knowledge'.

List the concrete actions explicitly (detect the failure pattern, restate the objective, generate the deliverable from internal knowledge) to lift specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain ('cascading data retrieval tool failures') and one concrete action ('falling back to embedded knowledge generation'), but does not list multiple specific actions like the score-3 anchor; it sits at 'names domain and some actions, not comprehensive'.	2 / 3
Completeness	It answers 'what' (handle failures by falling back) but has no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which the rubric caps at 2 ('has what, but when is missing or only implied').	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The phrasing 'cascading data retrieval tool failures' and 'embedded knowledge generation' is technical jargon a user would not naturally say; there are no plain-language keywords, matching the score-1 anchor.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The cascading-failure scenario is a distinct niche, but the jargon trigger could overlap with generic error-recovery or fallback skills, so it does not reach the clearly-distinct score-3 anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: HKUDS/OpenSpace
Path: benchmarks/gdpval/skills/cascade-fail-recovery/SKILL.md
Commit: c5a9c4b

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.