error-debugging-error-analysis

You are an expert error analysis specialist with deep expertise in debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions.

Quality

47%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/error-debugging-error-analysis/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 well-structured and token-efficient, but it offers only abstract directives instead of executable guidance, lacks validation checkpoints for a production-affecting workflow, and points to a reference file that is absent from the bundle. These gaps pull an otherwise clean layout down to middling scores.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance: example log/grep commands, a sample trace-correlation snippet, or a named tool invocation instead of abstract bullets.

Insert explicit validation checkpoints into the workflow (e.g. 'Confirm reproduction before proposing a fix; verify the fix with a targeted test and monitor error rate after deploy').

Either create resources/implementation-playbook.md and reference it via a real path (matching the references/ bundle convention), or remove the dangling reference and inline the essential checklist.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with minimal padding; only the 'Context' paragraph ('This tool provides systematic error analysis... Your goal is to identify root causes...') has light marketing-style fluff, fitting anchor 4 (efficient with minor trimmable over-explanation).	4 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level directives ('Gather error context', 'Reproduce or narrow the issue with targeted experiments', 'Identify root cause and validate with evidence') with no concrete commands, code, tool names, or examples, matching anchor 2 (minimal concrete guidance, missing specific steps); the deferral to resources/implementation-playbook.md points to a file that does not exist.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence exists (gather -> reproduce -> identify root cause -> propose fixes) but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops, and because the skill involves production changes the destructive-operation cap applies, holding it at anchor 3 (steps listed but validation gaps).	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized (Use when / Do not use / Context / Requirements / Instructions / Safety / Resources) but the single referenced file 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist in any bundle directory, making the reference a dead link that undermines navigation, so it sits at anchor 3 rather than 4.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 conveys a clear capability area but is held back by second-person voice, abstract rather than concrete actions, and the total absence of a 'Use when' trigger clause. It is distinguishable but not sharply niche, leaving it at a middling quality level.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g. 'Analyzes production incidents and debugs distributed systems...') and drop the 'You are an expert' framing.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when investigating production incidents, recurring errors, or root-cause analysis across services.'

Replace abstract areas with concrete actions and tools (e.g. 'parse stack traces, correlate logs and traces, identify root causes') to raise specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and three activities ('debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions') but these are abstract areas rather than concrete actions like 'extract text' or 'fill forms', landing at anchor 3; reduced by 1 to 2 because it uses second-person voice ('You are an expert error analysis specialist').	2 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but contains no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the guideline a missing when-clause caps completeness at 3 (anchor 3: clear what, when missing).	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords exist ('error analysis', 'debugging', 'production incidents', 'observability') but common natural phrases users say are missing ('troubleshoot', 'stack trace', 'logs', 'traces', 'root cause'), so it fits anchor 3 rather than the comprehensive coverage of anchor 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The error/debugging/observability framing is somewhat specific but broad enough to overlap with general debugging, code-review, and security-review skills, matching anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap').	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
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: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/error-debugging-error-analysis/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 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.