CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

azure-resource-manager-playwright-dotnet

Azure Resource Manager SDK for Microsoft Playwright Testing in .NET.

Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/azure-resource-manager-playwright-dotnet/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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.

A strong, largely executable reference for the SDK with a well-sequenced core workflow and concrete error handling. Its main weaknesses are inline API-reference material that belongs in a separate file, unvalidated destructive deletion, and small sources of waste (version stamps and a filler 'When to Use' line) that dilute token efficiency.

Suggestions

Add a verification checkpoint before the destructive delete step — e.g. confirm the workspace name and ProvisioningState, or use WaitUntil.Started and poll — which would lift workflow_clarity above its current cap.

Move the Key Types, Workspace Properties, Related SDKs, and Documentation Links material into a references/ file linked one level deep from SKILL.md, keeping the body as an overview plus workflow.

Remove the filler 'When to Use' sentence and relocate version numbers ('Stable v1.0.0', 'Default API Version: 2025-09-01') to a clearly versioned section so stale time-sensitive data does not tax the token budget.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, useful code and reference tables with no re-teaching of concepts Claude already knows, but it carries time-sensitive version/API numbers outside any deprecated section ('Stable v1.0.0, Preview v1.0.0-beta.1', 'Default API Version: 2025-09-01') and a pure-fluff closing line ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.') — matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: install commands, DefaultAzureCredential setup, full workspace CRUD, quota reads, and status-specific error handling ('catch (RequestFailedException ex) when (ex.Status == 409)'). Minor gaps keep it below a 5: later snippets depend on variables defined in earlier sections (e.g. 'workspaceCollection' in section 2), and 'Environment.SetEnvironmentVariable("PLAYWRIGHT_SERVICE_URL", ...)' will not propagate to a separate test process.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Core Workflow is clearly sequenced (create → get → list → update → check name → quotas → delete) with explicit WaitUntil semantics and a dedicated error-handling section. However the delete step is a destructive operation performed with no validation or verification (no confirmation of workspace identity, state, or name check before deletion), which per the rubric caps this dimension at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the ~290-line body inlines material that belongs in a separate reference file — the Key Types table, Workspace Properties table, Related SDKs, and Documentation Links. Section headers give genuine structure (better than anchor 2), but API-reference content inlined in the overview matches 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

40%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 identifies the domain accurately and distinctively but is a product label rather than a capability statement: it names no actions, includes no trigger guidance, and would leave Claude unable to decide from the description alone when to invoke the skill or what it can accomplish. Adding the concrete operations (workspace CRUD, quotas, name availability) and a 'Use when...' clause would move it substantially up the scale.

Suggestions

Add a capabilities clause drawn from the body's own summary, e.g. 'Create and manage Playwright Testing workspaces, check name availability, and view subscription and workspace quotas via Azure Resource Manager' to lift specificity and completeness.

Append an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when provisioning or managing Microsoft Playwright Testing workspaces in .NET, or when the user mentions Playwright Testing quotas or workspace setup' — its absence currently caps completeness.

Disambiguate from the sibling SDK in the description itself, e.g. 'management plane only; use Azure.Developer.MicrosoftPlaywrightTesting.NUnit for running tests', to reduce overlap risk with the test-execution skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain precisely ("Azure Resource Manager SDK for Microsoft Playwright Testing in .NET") but lists no concrete actions — capabilities like creating workspaces or managing quotas appear only in the body, matching the anchor 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not a 1 because the domain identification is specific rather than vague, and not a 3 because zero capabilities are stated.

2 / 5

Completeness

The description identifies what the product is but never says what it does, and it has no 'Use when...' trigger clause (which alone would cap the score at 3). The 'what' is naming-only with no stated capabilities and the 'when' is entirely absent, matching anchor 2 ('has a vague what and no when') rather than 3, which requires a clear statement of actions.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant technical keywords are present ("Azure Resource Manager", "Playwright Testing", ".NET", "SDK"), but the natural phrases a user would actually say when needing this skill ("create a Playwright workspace", "manage quotas", "provision", "check name availability") are missing, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (management-plane ARM SDK for a specific Azure service) with minimal conflict risk, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely related test-execution SDK (Azure.Developer.MicrosoftPlaywrightTesting.NUnit) that the body warns about — matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.

4 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

skills/azure-resource-manager-playwright-dotnet/SKILL.md

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.