sandbox-fallback-execution-5eda7b

Fallback pattern for executing Python code when sandbox execution fails by writing scripts to disk and running via shell

Quality

60%

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-fallback-execution-5eda7b/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 with concrete, copy-paste tool calls and a clear fallback workflow, but it is padded with redundant restatements of the same concept and lacks an error-recovery feedback loop after verification. Conciseness is the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Collapse the redundant Overview/When-to-Use/Complete-Example sections into a single concise statement; remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., why sandbox isolation is good).

Add an explicit feedback loop after Step 5: if verification fails, inspect stderr, fix the script, and re-run.

Move the long 'Complete Example Pattern' and 'Applicable Use Cases' into a reference file to reduce inline bulk, or trim them to essentials.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The fallback idea is restated across Overview, When to Use, Steps 1-2, Complete Example Pattern, and Applicable Use Cases, and it explains concepts Claude already knows ('provides isolation and artifact handling'); this noticeable redundancy matches the verbose anchor below the midpoint.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable guidance with real tool calls (write_file, run_shell, pip install) and multiple working code examples covering the common cases, with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are sequenced (attempt sandbox -> detect failure -> write script -> install deps -> execute -> verify) and include a verification step, but there is no fix-and-retry feedback loop; running arbitrary Python is a risky/batch-like operation and the missing retry loop caps clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Single well-organized SKILL.md with clear section headers and no nested references; for a self-contained fallback skill this is appropriately placed, with only minor inlining of content (the large complete example) that could live elsewhere.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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 conveys a clear, specific niche and concrete mechanism but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and leans on technical jargon over natural user phrasing. Distinctiveness is its strongest aspect while trigger-term quality is the weakest.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing the error strings users would encounter (e.g., 'e2b initialization error', 'sandbox not available') so the trigger is concrete.

Replace jargon with natural terms a user might say, such as 'sandbox is down' or 'can't run Python in the sandbox'.

Optionally broaden the action list (e.g., 'write Python scripts to disk, install dependencies, and run them via shell') to lift specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Python execution fallback) and 1-2 concrete actions ('writing scripts to disk and running via shell'), but does not enumerate a comprehensive set of actions, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	A clear 'what' is present (fallback pattern for executing Python via disk + shell) but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied, and per guidelines a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Keywords are technical jargon ('sandbox execution fails', 'e2b') rather than natural phrases a user would say; missing common user-facing terms, fitting the one-or-two-generic-keywords anchor.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a fairly distinct niche (sandbox-failure fallback) with specific triggers, leaving only minor overlap risk with closely related execution 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/sandbox-fallback-execution-5eda7b/SKILL.md
Commit: 3827781

Reviewed: 9 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.