support-responder
Expert customer support specialist delivering exceptional customer service, issue resolution, and user experience optimization. Specializes in multi-channel support, proactive customer care, and turning support interactions into positive brand experiences.
24
7%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./support-responder/skills/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
14%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description reads like a resume summary or marketing tagline rather than a functional skill description. It is packed with buzzwords and abstract claims ('exceptional', 'positive brand experiences') but lacks concrete actions, specific triggers, and any guidance on when Claude should select this skill. It would be very difficult for Claude to distinguish this skill from other communication or business-related skills.
Suggestions
Replace vague buzzwords with concrete actions, e.g., 'Drafts customer support responses, troubleshoots common issues, writes FAQ entries, handles complaint escalation workflows, and composes follow-up emails.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about responding to customer complaints, writing support tickets, handling refund requests, or drafting help desk communications.'
Remove marketing fluff like 'exceptional', 'positive brand experiences', and 'proactive customer care' — these add no selection value and reduce clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, buzzword-heavy language like 'exceptional customer service', 'issue resolution', 'user experience optimization', and 'positive brand experiences' without listing any concrete actions. No specific tasks like 'draft response emails', 'troubleshoot billing issues', or 'write FAQ articles' are mentioned. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description only vaguely addresses 'what' with abstract language and completely lacks any 'when' guidance. There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, but the 'what' is also very weak, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'customer support', 'issue resolution', and 'multi-channel support' that users might naturally use, but many terms are marketing fluff ('positive brand experiences', 'proactive customer care') rather than natural trigger terms. Missing common variations like 'help desk', 'ticket', 'complaint', 'refund', 'escalation'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is extremely generic and could overlap with any communication, writing, or business skill. Terms like 'user experience optimization' and 'issue resolution' are broad enough to conflict with UX design skills, general writing skills, or project management skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an extremely verbose, aspirational document that reads more like a customer support department handbook than actionable instructions for Claude. It explains concepts Claude already understands, provides non-executable pseudo-code disguised as real code, and lacks any concrete workflow with validation steps. The content would need to be reduced by 80%+ and refocused on specific, actionable instructions for how Claude should handle support interactions.
Suggestions
Reduce content to under 100 lines by removing all explanations of basic customer support concepts (channels, CSAT, empathy, etc.) and focus only on project-specific procedures, tone guidelines, and escalation rules Claude wouldn't already know.
Replace the illustrative Python classes with either actual executable code tied to real tools/APIs Claude can use, or remove them entirely and provide concrete response templates and decision trees instead.
Rewrite the workflow as a concrete decision tree: 'If customer reports X, do Y. If Z condition, escalate to [specific person/channel]' with explicit validation checkpoints.
Split the interaction template and analytics code into separate referenced files, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clear pointers to detailed resources.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. Explains basic customer support concepts Claude already knows (what CSAT is, what channels exist, what empathy means). The YAML channel config, Python analytics classes, and interaction template are all padded with obvious details. Most content describes general customer support philosophy rather than providing unique, actionable instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite containing code blocks, the Python classes are illustrative scaffolding rather than executable code (missing imports like generate_article_id, build_decision_tree, etc.). The workflow steps are vague bash comments like '# Analyze customer inquiry context.' The YAML config is a hypothetical template, not something Claude can actually use. Nothing is copy-paste ready or tied to real tools Claude can invoke. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step workflow process uses vague bash comments and bullet points that describe abstract activities rather than concrete sequences. There are no validation checkpoints, no decision criteria for routing, and no feedback loops. Steps like 'Conduct systematic troubleshooting with step-by-step diagnostic procedures' are circular and non-instructive. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including massive Python classes, YAML configs, and a lengthy markdown template. The final line references 'core training' vaguely without any specific file pointers. No content is appropriately split or navigable. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (554 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- OpenRoster-ai/awesome-openroster
- Commit
09aef5d
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.