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

55%

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-claude/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 with sensible Use/Do-not-use sections and a clear instructional sequence, but it stays high-level without concrete tooling or examples, lacks explicit fix-verification checkpoints for a destructive/production context, and points to a bundle file that is not present.

Suggestions

Add concrete tooling or example commands to the Instructions (e.g., a sample grep/structured-log query or tracing command) so guidance is executable, not just directional.

Insert an explicit fix-verification checkpoint ('Validate the fix in a non-production environment before deploying; confirm the error no longer reproduces') to lift the workflow_clarity cap.

Either create resources/implementation-playbook.md (or move it under references/ and update both the Instructions and Resources paths) so the referenced file actually resolves.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient, but the opening line redundantly restates the frontmatter description and the Context paragraph over-explains general technique ('industry-standard observability tools, structured logging, distributed tracing') that Claude already knows.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions give a structured sequence ('Gather...', 'Reproduce...', 'Identify...', 'Propose...') but stay high-level with no concrete commands, tools, or examples, leaving key execution details unspecified.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear gather-to-fix sequence is present, but fix-verification checkpoints are only implicit ('validate with evidence' covers root cause, not the fix); because the work touches production/destructive changes, workflow clarity is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is clean and the playbook reference is one level deep and well signaled, but the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist (no references/ or resources/ bundle directory is present) and the path diverges from the references/ convention, undermining navigation.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 specific niche and several concrete actions but is written in second person and omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness and lowers specificity. Adding a concrete trigger clause and switching to third person would meaningfully raise the score.

Suggestions

Switch to third-person voice ('Analyzes production incidents and debugs distributed systems...') instead of 'You are an expert' to recover the specificity penalty.

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

Add natural synonyms users say (logs, traces, stack traces, root cause, troubleshooting) to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists three domain actions ('debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions'), which would rate a 4, but the second-person 'You are an expert' voice triggers the -1 specificity penalty.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' but contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural keywords a user would say ('error analysis', 'debugging', 'production incidents', 'observability'), though common synonyms like logs, traces, root cause, and troubleshoot are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The error/incident/observability niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against a general debugging skill; not a 5 because the missing 'when' clause slightly raises trigger ambiguity.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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-claude/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.