pdf-gen-fallback-dee20c

Fallback workflow for document generation when code sandbox returns opaque errors

Quality

71%

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/pdf-gen-fallback-dee20c/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

81%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 highly actionable and well-sequenced with explicit verification and error-recovery loops, and assumes Claude's competence without padding. The main weakness is repeated near-duplicate code blocks that waste tokens, and a single-file layout that could split reference material out.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the reportlab canvas example: show the full try/except workflow once and reference it from Step 2 and the Example section instead of repeating it three times.

Consider moving the Fallback Hierarchy and Troubleshooting table into a reference file and linking from SKILL.md to reduce inline length.

Drop the redundant basic canvas block in Step 2 since Step 3 already shows the same generation with proper error handling.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Prose is lean with no over-explanation of concepts Claude knows, but the same reportlab canvas-drawing pattern is repeated nearly verbatim in Step 2, Step 3, and the Example section, so tokens could be tightened; fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'.	3 / 5
Actionability	Every step gives copy-paste-ready, executable `run_shell: python -c` commands with concrete library checks, generation, error capture, and file verification covering the common cases, matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly numbered 5-step sequence includes an explicit verify step (Step 4), a try/except feedback loop with status codes (Step 3), and a fallback hierarchy (Step 5), satisfying 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist, and the single SKILL.md is well-organized with Purpose, When to Use, numbered steps, Example, Troubleshooting, and Best Practices sections; it is not a 5 because the file exceeds ~50 lines and the troubleshooting/fallback-hierarchy content could plausibly live in separate reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 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 cleanly pairs a 'what' with a specific 'when' trigger and occupies a distinct niche, but the capability statement is abstract and the trigger phrasing is more technical than conversational. Tightening it to name concrete actions and add natural-language synonyms would lift it.

Suggestions

Name concrete actions in the description (e.g., 'Generate PDFs via run_shell python -c with library checks and error capture') instead of the abstract 'Fallback workflow'.

Add a natural-language trigger clause users would actually say, e.g. 'Use when the code sandbox fails with unclear errors during PDF or report generation'.

Include common synonyms/file extensions (PDF, reports, .pdf) to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('document generation') and a concrete triggering condition ('code sandbox returns opaque errors'), but describes only a single fallback action rather than multiple concrete capabilities, fitting the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly states both what ('Fallback workflow for document generation') and when ('when code sandbox returns opaque errors'); the 'when' is concrete but the 'what' stays abstract ('fallback workflow') rather than naming specific actions, so it sits below the 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'document generation' is a natural phrase, but 'code sandbox returns opaque errors' is jargon-heavy and lacks common synonyms or user-paraphrase variants a person would naturally say, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The narrow trigger (sandbox opaque errors during document generation) carves a distinct niche with low overlap risk; it is not a 5 because 'document generation' alone still touches several broader skills.	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/pdf-gen-fallback-dee20c/SKILL.md
Commit: 3827781

Reviewed: 17 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.