write-file-fallback-report

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

Quality

61%

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

56%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 delivers a clear, sequenced fallback workflow with concrete code and a verification step, but it is padded by redundant restatements of the same idea and its code examples rely on placeholders rather than runnable snippets.

Suggestions

Collapse the redundant Best Practices table, Common Pitfalls, and Success Criteria sections into the steps they restate, keeping only the checklist as a final verification cue, to remove padding.

Make the code examples runnable by replacing placeholders ([Document Title], [Concrete step 1], task_goal) with concrete inline values or a clearly parameterized function signature.

Move the document markdown template into a referenced template file (e.g. references/report-template.md) so the body stays a lean overview and progressive disclosure improves.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids basic-concept over-explanation, but the same pivot-to-write_file idea is restated across Steps, a Code Example, a Best Practices table, Common Pitfalls, and a Success Criteria checklist, creating structural redundancy that could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete code (write_file/list_dir calls, a detect_and_pivot function, a markdown template) but the examples are scaffolded with placeholders like [Document Title] and [Concrete step 1] and an undefined task_goal variable, so they are illustrative rather than copy-paste executable.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-step sequence with an explicit decision point ('If 2+ indicators present, proceed to Step 2') and a verification step (list_dir to confirm the file exists), but the validation is light with no error-recovery feedback loop, matching anchor 4.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single ~144-line monolithic file with all templates and guidance inlined and no bundle files or external references, so while section structure exists, content that could be split (e.g. document templates) is inline with no navigation, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 distinctive and answers both what and when, with a clearly bounded fallback scenario. Its main weaknesses are generic action language and trigger phrasing tied to internal failure states rather than natural user requests.

Suggestions

Replace the failure-condition phrasing with a user-facing trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a requested report or document cannot be produced because data-retrieval tools (read_file, search_web, sandbox) are failing or returning empty results.'

List 2-3 concrete actions (e.g. 'generate a structured markdown report, embed domain-knowledge frameworks, and verify the written file') instead of the single generic 'generate professional documents' phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the tool (write_file) and a concrete action ('Generate professional documents') plus a mechanism ('leveraging embedded domain knowledge instead of external retrieval'), but offers only one primary action rather than a list of several, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (generate professional documents via write_file with embedded knowledge) and 'when' ('when primary data sources fail'), so it exceeds the missing-trigger cap of 3, but the 'when' is a failure condition rather than a concrete user trigger phrase, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant terms ('documents', 'write_file', 'primary data sources fail') but these are technical/failure-condition phrasings rather than natural user keywords, and common synonyms or file extensions are missing, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The fallback-on-tool-failure niche is a clear, distinct trigger scenario with minimal overlap risk against ordinary document-generation skills, matching anchor 5.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/write-file-fallback-report/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.