cascade-fail-recovery

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

Quality

53%

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

60%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 lays out a clear, well-sequenced fallback workflow with a useful detection checkpoint, but suffers from redundant restating across three sections and placeholder code rather than a fully executable example. Trimming the duplicate guidance and concretizing the write_file content would raise the score.

Suggestions

Collapse the Guidelines section into the Recovery Procedure to remove the duplicated threshold/no-retry/preserve-objective points.

Replace the write_file placeholder content with a concrete short example document so the code block is copy-paste ready.

Add a brief verification step after write_file (e.g., re-read the file or confirm the objective deliverable is satisfied) to add a feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The Recovery Procedure, Example Application, and Guidelines sections each restate the same threshold/fallback steps, and lines like 'This preserves task context and ensures completion' add padding; it is mostly efficient but could be tightened by merging the redundant sections.	3 / 5
Actionability	The write_file call is concrete but its content is a placeholder ('[Generate content from internal knowledge base]') and the core 'generate from embedded knowledge' action is inherently abstract, leaving key details unspecified.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 4-step sequence (recognize → preserve context → invoke fallback → execute write_file) with an explicit cascade-detection checkpoint; write_file is not a destructive/batch operation so the missing verify/retry loop does not trigger the cap.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained with well-labeled sections (Purpose, When to Apply, Recovery Procedure, Example, Guidelines, Related Skills); at ~80 lines with internal redundancy it is well-organized but not maximally lean.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

46%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 states a clear purpose and a distinct niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger and relies on internal/procedural language rather than natural user phrases. Adding concrete trigger terms would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers (e.g., 'Use when web search or page fetching tools fail repeatedly and the task is at risk of abandonment').

Replace procedural jargon with terms users actually say, such as 'web search failing', 'can't retrieve pages', or 'tool keeps timing out'.

List 1-2 additional concrete fallback actions to broaden specificity beyond the single 'embedded knowledge generation' action.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('cascading data retrieval tool failures') and one concrete action ('falling back to embedded knowledge generation'), but stops at a single action rather than enumerating several.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause — the 'when' is only weakly implied by the failure phrasing, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The phrasing ('cascading data retrieval tool failures', 'embedded knowledge generation') is procedural jargon rather than terms a user would naturally say like 'web search keeps failing' or 'can't fetch the page'; common synonyms are missing.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The cascading-failure-plus-knowledge-fallback niche is fairly specific and mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic error-handling skills.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 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: 3827781

Reviewed: 25 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.