code-execution-fallback

Handle code execution failures with fallback strategies and anchored workspace paths

Quality

58%

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/code-execution-fallback/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%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 content is highly actionable with executable code and a clear fallback ladder, but it is slightly verbose in places and inlines everything into a single file with no progressive disclosure to references. Tightening the explanatory prose and splitting detailed material into referenced files would raise the score.

Suggestions

Trim explanations of concepts Claude already knows (the 'Why:' on basic path anchoring, the explicit BAD/GOOD commentary) and let the code blocks speak for themselves.

Split the detailed fallback ladder, failure-scenario table, and worked example into a referenced file (e.g. references/fallback-patterns.md) so SKILL.md stays a concise overview with one-level-deep links.

Add an explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback loop within a fallback level (not only escalation between levels) to push workflow clarity to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient with executable snippets and a compact decision tree, but it includes explanation Claude already knows (the 'Why:' on basic path anchoring, anti-patterns restating the obvious, and inline beginner-style comments) that could be tightened; it sits at 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' rather than the lean anchor-5.	3 / 5
Actionability	The body provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready code for Python and bash, concrete heredoc patterns, explicit BAD/GOOD path examples, and a worked end-to-end example covering the common cases, matching 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The fallback ladder (Level 1→2→3), decision tree, and verification checklist give a clear sequence with most checkpoints present, including a verify-output step; it is not a 5 because the recovery loop is described as escalation rather than an explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback cycle within a level.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files (references/scripts/assets) exist, so all content is inlined in one ~155-line file with section headers but no external references; under 'judge against the actual bundle structure,' this is 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline' since the example tables and detailed ladder could live in separate files.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and relies on generic action language, which caps its completeness and trigger-term quality. It is reasonably distinct but would benefit from concrete trigger phrases and tool names.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when execute_code_sandbox fails, sandbox execution times out, or files are written to unexpected directories.'

Replace generic terms ('fallback strategies') with the specific tool/language a user would say, e.g. 'retry with run_shell heredoc, then delegate to shell_agent'.

Name the concrete actions you actually perform (retry, switch to run_shell, escalate to shell_agent, verify output paths) to lift specificity from a category to a comprehensive list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('code execution failures') and two concrete actions ('fallback strategies' and 'anchored workspace paths'), but these are generic categories rather than the multiple specific concrete actions the anchor-5 example lists; it fits 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'.	3 / 5
Completeness	A clear 'what' is present (handle failures with fallback + anchored paths) but there is no 'Use when...' clause and the 'when' is only weakly implied by the failure framing; per the guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness, and this sits at 'Has a vague what and no when' rather than a clear-what-only score of 3 because the when is essentially absent.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces some relevant keywords ('code execution failures', 'fallback', 'workspace paths') but omits the natural phrases a user would say ('execute_code_sandbox failed', 'sandbox timeout', 'wrong directory') and any tool names that appear in the body, matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of execution-failure fallback plus workspace path anchoring carves a fairly specific niche with only minor overlap risk against general coding/execution skills, fitting 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related 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/code-execution-fallback/SKILL.md
Commit: 3827781

Reviewed: 5 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.