docx-shell-workaround

Handle docx files using shell-based XML extraction and python-docx via run_shell when standard tools fail

Quality

65%

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/docx-shell-workaround/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

68%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 copy-paste-ready code and clear sequencing, but it is held back by redundant duplicate examples and a complete absence of validation/verification checkpoints in an XML-manipulation workflow.

Suggestions

Collapse the three near-duplicate XML-parsing blocks (Step 2, Step 3, Full Workflow) into one canonical example and reference it, removing the padding.

Add an explicit validation step after extraction and after docx creation (e.g. verify the unzip output is well-formed XML; reopen output.docx with python-docx to confirm it loads) to lift workflow clarity above the cap.

Add a validate -> fix -> retry feedback loop in the Troubleshooting section rather than only listing static fallbacks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is code-dominant with little conceptual over-explanation, but it repeats near-identical XML-parsing code in Step 2, Step 3, and the Full Workflow, plus two largely redundant docx-creation examples, which is padding that could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	All guidance is fully executable and copy-paste ready — `unzip -p`, python3 heredocs using ElementTree and python-docx, `pip install`, and a zipfile fallback — covering the common read, create, and troubleshoot cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are explicitly sequenced (Step 1/2/3 and the Full Workflow), but this is XML/document manipulation with no validation or verification checkpoints and no validate-then-retry feedback loop, which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single well-organized SKILL.md with clear section headers (When to Use, Reading, Creating, Full Workflow, Key Points, Troubleshooting) and no bundle files; structure is good, though the redundant example blocks could be externalized into a reference file.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 reasonably specific and includes an explicit 'when' trigger, but it lacks natural synonym coverage (.docx, Word documents) and compresses its actions into a single clause rather than enumerating them.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger synonyms and the file extension, e.g. 'Use when working with .docx or Word documents and standard tools fail.'

Enumerate the concrete actions distinctly (e.g. 'extract text, create and modify .docx files') rather than packing them into one phrase.

Spell out which 'standard tools' are meant (read_file, execute_code_sandbox) to sharpen the trigger.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('docx files') and a couple of concrete mechanisms ('shell-based XML extraction', 'python-docx via run_shell'), but it compresses everything into a single clause without enumerating the distinct actions (read vs. create), so coverage is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (handle docx via shell XML extraction and python-docx) and 'when' ('when standard tools fail') are present, but the trigger phrase is generic rather than a concrete, specific trigger list, so it sits above the midpoint but below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes the relevant keyword 'docx files' but omits common natural variations and synonyms a user would say, such as '.docx', 'Word documents', or 'Word files'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'when standard tools fail' framing carves out a distinct fallback niche that is unlikely to trigger for a general docx skill, with only minor overlap risk against a closely related docx-handling skill.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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/docx-shell-workaround/SKILL.md
Commit: 3827781

Reviewed: 11 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.