verify-success-after-unknown-error

Verify task completion by checking filesystem state when execute_code_sandbox or run_shell return misleading unknown errors

Quality

77%

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/verify-success-after-unknown-error/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is well-structured with a clear verification workflow and concrete examples, but it is somewhat verbose and leaves one key step (content validation) as illustrative guidance rather than executable code.

Suggestions

Replace the comment-only content validation in Step 2 with concrete executable checks (e.g., open and parse the xlsx/json and assert expected fields) to lift actionability.

Trim or merge the 'Benefits', 'Anti-Patterns', and 'Related Tools' sections to reduce token overhead that restates inferable information.

Consolidate the three near-duplicate file-checking examples (Step 1, the complete pattern, and the shell example) to avoid redundancy.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely actionable code but pads tokens with 'Benefits', 'Anti-Patterns', and 'Related Tools' sections that restate ideas Claude can infer, matching the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor rather than the lean score 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides executable Python and bash examples and a complete verification function, but Step 2 ('Validate File Content/State') is illustrative comment-only guidance ('Verify expected sheets, columns') rather than executable validation code, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Presents a clear three-step sequence (check files, validate content, decision logic) with an explicit decision-tree validation checkpoint and feedback branches, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single self-contained SKILL.md with no nested references and well-organized sections (Purpose, When to Apply, Verification Steps, Examples, Anti-Patterns), satisfying the simple-skill allowance for well-organized single-file content.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

85%

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 specific, third-person, and clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it with an explicit trigger. Its main weakness is trigger-term quality: it relies on internal tool names rather than natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add natural-language trigger terms a user would actually say (e.g., 'Use when an execution or shell step reports an unknown error but may have succeeded') alongside the tool names.

Consider phrasing the trigger as an explicit 'Use when ...' clause to maximize discoverability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions ('Verify task completion', 'checking filesystem state') tied to specific named tools and a precise trigger ('misleading unknown errors'), matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the narrower score 2.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers what ('Verify task completion by checking filesystem state') and when ('when execute_code_sandbox or run_shell return misleading unknown errors') with an explicit trigger clause, matching the score 3 anchor; not score 2 because the 'when' is stated, not merely implied.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('unknown error', 'verify', 'task completion') but leans on internal tool names ('execute_code_sandbox', 'run_shell') that a user would not naturally say, so coverage of natural phrasing is incomplete versus the score 3 anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a narrow, distinct niche (verifying success specifically after misleading unknown errors from named tools) with little overlap risk, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 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/verify-success-after-unknown-error/SKILL.md
Commit: c5a9c4b

Reviewed: 2 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.