CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

azure-servicebus-ts

Enterprise messaging with queues, topics, and subscriptions.

53

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/azure-servicebus-ts/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is azure-servicebus-ts in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 body is a lean, highly actionable code reference with strong coverage of Service Bus patterns. Its weaknesses are the lack of validation checkpoints around batch and settlement operations and dangling references to documentation files that do not exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation/verification steps for batch sends and message settlement (e.g. confirm batch size limits, verify complete/deadLetter succeeded before closing) to raise workflow clarity above 3.

Either create the referenced Reference Documentation files (e.g. references/patterns.md, references/error-handling.md) and link them, or remove the dangling reference entries to fix progressive disclosure.

Replace the generic "When to Use" line with concrete trigger guidance, and drop the redundant opening line that repeats the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is almost entirely executable TypeScript with minimal prose and no padding about what Service Bus is, fitting anchor 4's "efficient; minor instances of over-explanation"; the only slack is the repeated description line and the generic "When to Use" sentence.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready, fully executable code covers the common cases (send, receive, batch, subscribe, sessions, DLQ, scheduled, deferred, peek), matching anchor 5's "fully executable; copy-paste ready code".

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Content is organized by feature rather than as a sequenced workflow, and batch operations (createMessageBatch, sendMessages) plus destructive settlement (complete/deadLetter/abandon) have no validation/verification checkpoints; the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3 for such cases.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Headers are clear, but ~230 lines are all inlined and the "Reference Documentation" entries point to no real files (no bundle files exist and there are no markdown links/paths), fitting anchor 3's "references present but not clearly signaled".

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 names a clear domain and entities but uses no action verbs and omits any "Use when" trigger guidance, leaving it below the strongest examples. Adding concrete actions and an explicit trigger clause would raise specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Rewrite as concrete actions, e.g. "Send, receive, and broker messages via Azure Service Bus queues, topics, and subscriptions" to add verbs and the product name.

Add a "Use when..." trigger clause, e.g. "Use when integrating with Azure Service Bus, sending messages to queues/topics, or handling pub/sub subscriptions."

Include the product name "Azure Service Bus" and synonyms like "pub/sub" to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "Enterprise messaging with queues, topics, and subscriptions" names the domain and concrete entities but contains no action verbs (no send/receive/publish/subscribe), making it weaker than anchor 2's "Processes PDF files" yet above anchor 1's pure abstraction since a specific domain is named.

2 / 5

Completeness

A "what" is present but weak (no verbs) and there is no "Use when..." clause; per the rubric guideline a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"messaging", "queues", "topics", and "subscriptions" are natural relevant keywords, but the product name (Azure Service Bus) and common synonyms (pub/sub, message broker) are missing, matching anchor 3's "some relevant keywords but missing common variations".

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The queues/topics/subscriptions trio marks a recognizable broker niche that is mostly distinct, but omitting "Azure Service Bus" leaves minor overlap with other messaging-broker skills, fitting anchor 4.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.