ssl-proxy-debug-workflow

Systematic debugging workflow for SSL/proxy connectivity issues with government and institutional websites

Quality

59%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./benchmarks/gdpval/skills/ssl-proxy-debug-workflow/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 throughout and a sensible step sequence, but it is weakened by missing validation feedback loops for its risky operations and by being a monolithic single file with no progressive disclosure. Some prose over-explains concepts Claude already knows.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints, especially around Step 3 (disable SSL verification) and the complete function — e.g., re-enable verification after diagnosing, and confirm a returned response is legitimate before treating it as success.

Trim explanatory prose that restates concepts Claude already knows (the 'Government networks often require...', 'Some government sites block...', 'Government sites may be slow...' lead-ins) and let the code stand on its own.

Consider splitting the complete troubleshooting function and the fallback strategies into a referenced file (e.g., references/debug_function.py or FALLBACKS.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview pointing one level deep.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and code-driven, but several steps open with unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., 'Government networks often require specific proxy configurations', 'Some government sites block automated requests'), fitting the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.	3 / 5
Actionability	Every step provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready Python code, and the complete debug_government_url function ties them together to cover common cases, matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready code' anchor.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-7 plus fallback Strategies A-C give a clear sequence, but the workflow includes risky operations (disabling SSL verification, batch retries) with no explicit validation/verification checkpoints or validate-fix-retry feedback loops, so per the destructive/batch cap workflow clarity is held at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and all content is inlined in a single ~260-line document with good section headers but no references to separate files; content that could be split (complete function, fallback strategies) is inline, matching the 'some structure but could be better organized' anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 names a specific, distinctive niche but is held back by a missing 'Use when...' trigger clause and only moderate trigger-term coverage. It answers 'what' well but leaves 'when' only weakly implied.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers (e.g., 'Use when a script hits SSLError/certificate verify failed against a .gov or institutional site, or when browser access works but the script fails').

Broaden trigger terms with natural user phrasings and synonyms such as 'certificate verify failed', 'proxy auth', 'connection timeout', and '.gov sites'.

Optionally enumerate a few concrete actions (verify connectivity, toggle SSL verification, manipulate proxy settings, adjust headers) to lift specificity from 1-2 actions to several.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes a concrete domain ("SSL/proxy connectivity issues with government and institutional websites") and a debugging workflow action, but does not enumerate multiple specific actions, matching the anchor for naming a domain plus 1-2 concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' (systematic debugging workflow) but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3 with only a weakly implied 'when'.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ("SSL", "proxy", "connectivity issues", "government and institutional websites") but misses common variations a user might say (e.g., "certificate verify failed", "can't connect to .gov"), fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The narrow niche of SSL/proxy debugging for government/institutional sites is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general networking skills, sitting above the 'could still overlap' anchor but without the explicit distinct trigger phrases needed for a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/ssl-proxy-debug-workflow/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.