CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

error-debugging-error-trace

You are an error tracking and observability expert specializing in implementing comprehensive error monitoring solutions. Set up error tracking systems, configure alerts, implement structured logging, and ensure teams can quickly identify and resolve production issues.

40

Quality

38%

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/error-debugging-error-trace/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is error-debugging-error-trace in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

36%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a high-level framework for error tracking and monitoring but lacks the concrete, executable guidance needed to be truly actionable. The instructions read more like a checklist of goals than a practical workflow. The reference to an implementation playbook is a good structural choice, but without that file existing in the bundle, the skill is essentially hollow.

Suggestions

Add concrete code examples for at least one error tracking integration (e.g., Sentry setup, structured logging configuration) to improve actionability.

Expand the workflow steps with specific commands, validation criteria, and a feedback loop (e.g., 'Send a test error → verify it appears in dashboard → check alert fires → if not, review configuration').

Either provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` bundle file or inline the most critical patterns and examples directly in the skill.

Remove the redundant description repetition in the body and trim the 'Context' section, which restates what's already conveyed by the description and instructions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill repeats the description in the body ('You are an error tracking and observability expert...'), includes 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' sections that are somewhat boilerplate, and the 'Context' section restates what's already clear. Some tightening is possible, but it's not egregiously verbose.

3 / 5

Actionability

The instructions are high-level directives ('Assess current error capture', 'Define severity levels', 'Configure logging, tracing, and alert routing') with no concrete code, commands, configuration examples, or specific tool integrations. It tells Claude what to do abstractly but not how to do it.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

There is a rough sequence (assess → define → configure → validate), but steps are vaguely defined with no specific validation checkpoints, no feedback loops for error recovery, and no concrete commands or verification criteria. The 'validate signal quality with test errors' step lacks any detail on how to do this.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed patterns, which is a reasonable one-level-deep reference. However, no bundle files are provided, so we cannot verify the reference exists or is well-structured. The main file itself is thin on content, suggesting too much is deferred without enough inline substance to be useful standalone.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Description

41%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 a clear domain (error tracking and observability) and lists several relevant actions, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection. It also uses second-person voice ('You are') which is inappropriate for a skill description, and the trigger terms, while relevant, miss common synonyms and tool names that users would naturally mention.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger phrases like 'Use when the user asks about error monitoring, crash reporting, setting up Sentry/Datadog, production debugging, or log aggregation.'

Rewrite in third person voice (e.g., 'Sets up error tracking systems, configures alerts...') instead of the current second person 'You are...' framing.

Include more specific trigger terms and tool names users would naturally mention, such as 'Sentry', 'Datadog', 'PagerDuty', 'APM', 'crash reports', 'log management', and 'incident response'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (error tracking/observability) and lists a few concrete actions (set up error tracking systems, configure alerts, implement structured logging), but these are still somewhat high-level and not deeply specific about what exactly is done (e.g., which tools, what kinds of configurations).

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a reasonable 'what' (set up error tracking, configure alerts, implement structured logging) but completely lacks an explicit 'when' clause or trigger guidance. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and the 'what' is only moderately clear, placing this at a 2.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant terms like 'error tracking', 'observability', 'alerts', 'structured logging', and 'production issues', but misses common natural user phrases and synonyms like 'Sentry', 'Datadog', 'monitoring', 'crash reporting', 'log aggregation', 'APM', or 'debugging production errors'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The focus on error tracking and observability provides some distinction, but terms like 'monitoring', 'alerts', and 'logging' could overlap with general DevOps, infrastructure, or logging-specific skills. It's somewhat specific but not clearly carved out from adjacent domains.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

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.