write-file-fallback-report

Generate professional documents using write_file when primary data sources fail, leveraging embedded domain knowledge instead of external retrieval

Quality

42%

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/write-file-fallback-report/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

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

The body is well-organized with a clear five-step workflow, concrete templates, and a do/don't table, but it suffers from redundancy between sections, placeholder-laden code, and shallow validation. It is competent but has clear room to tighten and strengthen execution guidance.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant TOOL_FAILURE_INDICATORS block (Step 1) and the duplicated Code Example section; reference the 'When to Use' list and Step 3 template instead to improve conciseness.

Replace placeholders like 'professionally_structured_markdown' and '[Concrete step 1]' with concrete, copy-paste-ready example content to raise actionability.

Add a real validate-and-retry loop in Step 5 (e.g., read the file back to confirm content, and re-run write_file if empty) to lift workflow_clarity toward a 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'When to Use' bullet list is restated as the TOOL_FAILURE_INDICATORS block in Step 1 and the 'Code Example' section re-shows the document template from Step 3, which is redundancy that keeps it below the lean/efficient 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	It provides concrete write_file/list_dir calls and a detect_and_pivot function, but relies on placeholders like 'professionally_structured_markdown' and '[Concrete step 1]', so it is not copy-paste ready as the score-3 anchor requires.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with a decision point and a 'Success Criteria' checklist, but the validation in Step 5 (list_dir to confirm the file exists) is shallow and there is no fix-and-retry error-recovery loop, so it fits 'steps listed but validation gaps' rather than the explicit feedback-loop 3.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the single SKILL.md is well-sectioned, but content such as the duplicated Code Example could be split out and the inline template is monolithic, matching 'Some structure but... content that should be separate is inline' rather than the cleanly split 3.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

35%

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 action and a trigger condition but leans on technical jargon rather than natural user language and omits an explicit 'Use when' clause. It is adequate but not exemplary.

Suggestions

Rewrite the trigger in natural user-facing terms (e.g., 'Use when read_file, search_web, or other data tools keep failing and you still need to produce a report').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause to satisfy the completeness anchor for a 3.

List 2-3 concrete document types or actions to lift specificity from a 2 to a 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase 'Generate professional documents using write_file' names a concrete action and tool, but only lists one action rather than the multiple specific actions ('Lists multiple specific concrete actions') required for a 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what it does ('Generate professional documents using write_file') and gives an implied when ('when primary data sources fail'), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which the guidelines say caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'primary data sources fail', 'embedded domain knowledge', and 'external retrieval' are technical jargon a user would not naturally say, matching the 'No natural keywords; technical jargon' anchor rather than a 2 which needs relevant user-facing keywords.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The fallback trigger ('when primary data sources fail') is somewhat niche, but the generic action 'Generate professional documents' could still overlap with general document-generation skills, fitting 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap' rather than the clearly-distinct 3.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 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/write-file-fallback-report/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.