sandbox-execution-fallback-717e65

Fallback from execute_code_sandbox to file-based run_shell execution when sandbox fails

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./benchmarks/gdpval/skills/sandbox-execution-fallback-717e65/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

76%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, copy-paste-ready examples and a clear procedural spine, but it lacks an explicit validation checkpoint before its destructive cleanup step and carries minor over-explanation in the Advantages/Best Practices sections.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation gate before cleanup, e.g., verify the script ran successfully (non-zero exit code or expected output file present) and only then remove temporary files.

Trim or condense the "Advantages Over Sandbox Execution" table and "Best Practices" list, which restate knowledge Claude already has, to improve token efficiency.

Consider moving the lengthy "Complete Example" into a separate examples reference file so the main SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean with concrete commands and no padding about basic concepts, but the "Advantages" table and "Best Practices" list include minor guidance Claude already knows (e.g., "Add error handling", "Use absolute paths") that could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready write_file() and run_shell() calls, a complete end-to-end Python example, and a troubleshooting table with specific commands, covering the common cases with fully executable guidance.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The four-step sequence (detect, write, execute, clean up) is clear, but the destructive cleanup (rm script.py) runs without a validation checkpoint confirming successful execution first, which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	With no bundle files, the single SKILL.md is well organized into clear sections (When to Use, Procedure, Example, Troubleshooting) and easy to navigate, though a couple of sections pad rather than split content, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

57%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 clearly conveys a narrow, distinctive purpose with concrete tool names, but its trigger guidance is terse and leans on technical jargon rather than natural user phrasings, leaving the what/when coverage at a mid-level anchor.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause with natural user phrasings (e.g., "Use when sandbox code execution is failing repeatedly or timing out") to lift completeness above 3.

Include common natural synonyms a user might say (e.g., "code execution", "sandbox timing out") alongside the internal tool names to improve trigger-term quality.

Optionally broaden the action list slightly (e.g., mention writing scripts to file and running them via shell) to push specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Fallback from execute_code_sandbox to file-based run_shell execution" names a single concrete action with the specific tools involved, but does not enumerate multiple actions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	The "what" (fallback to file-based run_shell execution) is clear and the "when" ("when sandbox fails") is present but terse, with no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The terms "execute_code_sandbox", "run_shell", and "sandbox fails" are relevant but largely internal tool jargon rather than the natural phrases a user would say, so it has some relevant keywords while missing common variations.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description targets a highly specific internal scenario with named tools (sandbox-to-shell fallback), giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against unrelated skills.	5 / 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/sandbox-execution-fallback-717e65/SKILL.md
Commit: 3827781

Reviewed: 20 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.