error-diagnostics-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

53%

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-diagnostics-error-analysis/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

46%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 skill body is well-structured with clear sections and a sensible high-level workflow, but it provides little executable guidance and lacks validation checkpoints for a risky production workflow. The referenced playbook file also appears to be absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable specifics to the Instructions (e.g., example log/tracing queries, specific commands, or a worked stack-trace analysis) instead of high-level hints.

Insert explicit validation checkpoints into the workflow (e.g., 'confirm reproduction', 'validate root cause with evidence before proposing a fix', 'verify the fix in a non-production environment').

Tighten or remove the padded Context paragraph and ensure the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' actually exists in the bundle.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The Instructions and Safety bullets are lean, but the Context section is padded with abstract prose restating the expert role and restating goals ('This tool provides systematic error analysis... using industry-standard observability tools...'); mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation, so a 3 rather than 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level hints ('Gather error context...', 'Reproduce or narrow the issue with targeted experiments') with no concrete commands, tools, queries, or code, matching 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; not a 3 because no executable specifics or examples are provided.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Instructions give a clear five-step sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or validate-fix-retry loops for a workflow that touches production and destructive changes; per the rubric this caps workflow_clarity at 3 even though the sequence is clear.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-organized into clearly headed sections with a one-level-deep reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' signaled in both Instructions and Resources; not a 5 because no bundle directory exists and the referenced file appears to be missing, leaving a small navigation gap.	4 / 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 establishes a clear niche and includes several natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when' clause and frames capabilities as a generic expert role rather than concrete actions. Adding explicit trigger guidance and specific actions would raise completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers (e.g., 'Use when investigating production incidents, recurring errors, or root-cause analysis across services').

Replace abstract role framing with concrete actions (e.g., 'parses stack traces, correlates distributed traces, identifies root causes, and proposes fixes').

Include common natural synonyms users say, such as 'logs', 'traces', 'stack traces', and 'root cause'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and several activities ('debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions'), but these are generic role descriptors rather than concrete, distinct skill actions, fitting the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor; not a 2 because multiple activities are named, not a 4 because none are concrete or specific.	3 / 5
Completeness	There is a clear 'what' (error analysis, debugging, observability) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric completeness is capped at 3; not a 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than weakly present.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'error analysis', 'debugging', 'production incidents', and 'observability' are natural phrases a user might say, giving good keyword coverage; not a 5 because common variations such as 'logs', 'traces', 'stack traces', and 'root cause' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The error/incident/observability niche is mostly distinct from general coding skills with only minor overlap with broad debugging/troubleshooting skills; not a 5 because 'debugging' is broad and the trigger phrasing is not crisply differentiated.	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/skills/error-diagnostics-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.