working-directory-resolution

Resolve file access failures by changing to the correct working directory before command execution

Quality

64%

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/working-directory-resolution/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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 extensive executable examples and a sensible fallback strategy, organized into clear sections. It is slightly verbose in its framing prose and lacks a formal validation checkpoint loop, which keeps conciseness and workflow clarity just below the top anchors.

Suggestions

Trim the restating prose in the intro and the closing line that duplicates the 'When to Apply' triggers to improve token efficiency.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the main flow (e.g. verify the directory exists and the file resolves before proceeding) to strengthen the workflow loop.

Consider moving the pitfalls table and fallback strategy behind a brief 'see also' pointer or condensing them, since the core pattern is already fully conveyed by the implementation examples.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly tight with code blocks and a pitfalls table, but includes restating prose such as the intro explanation of why failures occur and the closing line that repeats the 'When to Apply' triggers, fitting the anchor for mostly efficient content with some unnecessary explanation.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready executable bash snippets covering basic usage, run_shell integration, multiple operations, conditional changes, existence checks, script headers, and a pwd/find fallback, matching the anchor for fully executable guidance covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The single action is unambiguous with a clear 'When to Apply' trigger list and a three-step fallback recovery sequence (pwd -> find -> verify), but it lacks a formal validate-and-retry checkpoint loop, fitting the anchor for clear sequence with most checkpoints present and minor gaps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is self-contained with well-organized sections (symptoms, solution, implementation, when-to-apply, pitfalls, fallback) and no nested references; at ~94 lines without external files it is appropriately structured but slightly exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill exception, fitting the good-structure anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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 is clear about the single action it performs but lacks an explicit trigger clause and natural user phrasing, capping completeness and trigger quality at the midpoint. It is reasonably distinct as a niche pattern.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause naming concrete symptoms users would say, e.g. 'Use when commands fail with file-not-found errors or when read_file/execute_code_sandbox cannot locate existing files.'

Include natural user-facing terms and error phrases (e.g. 'file not found', 'no such file or directory', 'wrong working directory') alongside the technical wording.

Optionally enumerate a couple of the specific resolution actions (e.g. 'prepend cd to commands, verify directory with pwd') to raise specificity toward a more comprehensive listing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (working directory resolution) and one concrete action ("changing to the correct working directory before command execution"), matching the anchor for naming a domain plus 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states the "what" (resolve file access failures by changing the working directory) but lacks an explicit "Use when..." clause; the trigger is only weakly implied via "file access failures", which caps completeness at 3 per the guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant keywords like "file access failures" and "working directory", but omits natural user phrases such as "file not found" or "can't find file" and leans on technical jargon, fitting the anchor with some relevant keywords but missing common variations.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Changing to the correct working directory" carves a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk, though the broad framing of "file access failures" leaves minor overlap with general file-handling skills, fitting the mostly-distinct anchor.	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/working-directory-resolution/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.