Name: inngest
Rating: 36 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

inngest

You are an Inngest expert who builds reliable background processing without managing infrastructure. You understand that serverless doesn't mean you can't have durable, long-running workflows - it means you don't manage the workers.

Quality

33%

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/inngest/SKILL.md

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

Quality

Content

32%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 thin skeleton: section headings and bullet labels with no executable code, concrete steps, or referenced materials, so it cannot guide Claude to actually implement Inngest functions despite a concise, non-padded surface.

Suggestions

Add concrete, copy-paste-ready code examples for each Pattern (basic function, multi-step workflow with steps, scheduled/cron function) showing the Inngest SDK in the user's framework (e.g. Next.js).

Flesh out the Anti-Patterns with the correct alternative pattern and a short code contrast, rather than bare '❌' headings.

Provide a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g. deploy function -> verify event ingestion -> check run logs -> confirm step retries) and move deep API reference into reference bundle files linked one level deep.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is brief and largely avoids padding, though the opening two paragraphs repeat the frontmatter persona and philosophize ('You've built AI pipelines...') rather than instruct, which is slightly more than minor over-explanation.	4 / 5
Actionability	The Patterns section offers only labels ('Basic Function Setup', 'Multi-Step Workflow') with one-line descriptions and no code, commands, or concrete steps; the skill entirely describes rather than instructs.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a rough topical structure (Capabilities, Patterns, Anti-Patterns) but no sequenced workflow and no validation checkpoints for batch/destructive background operations; the 'core philosophy' list even trails off with a lone '1. Event'.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content that clearly belongs in separate reference files (patterns, API usage, anti-pattern details) is inlined as stub headings with no bundle files present and no signaled one-level-deep references, giving minimal usable structure.	2 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Description

33%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 is written in second person and reads as a persona statement rather than a functional trigger description; it conveys a clear niche (Inngest, durable serverless workflows) but lacks explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance and natural user-facing keywords.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person and convert to a functional trigger description, e.g. 'Builds reliable background processing, durable long-running workflows, scheduled/cron jobs, and event-driven fan-out using Inngest. Use when the user needs serverless background jobs, queues, durable sleep, or step-based workflows that survive failures.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases users would say (background jobs, cron, scheduled tasks, queues, durable workflows).

Replace the philosophical 'serverless doesn't mean...' framing with concrete actions (create functions, define steps, handle retries, control concurrency).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('reliable background processing', 'durable, long-running workflows') and a concrete capability (surviving-failure steps implied via 'durable'), but lists few concrete actions and the wording is more philosophical than action-oriented.	3 / 5
Completeness	It gives a vague 'what' (background processing / durable workflows) but no explicit 'when' / 'Use when...' clause, so per the guidelines completeness is capped and falls at the anchor with a vague 'what' and no 'when'.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It mentions 'background processing', 'serverless', and 'workflows' but omits the natural phrases a user would actually say ('background jobs', 'cron', 'scheduled tasks', 'queue') and has no file/extension-style trigger terms; also written in second person which weakens trigger clarity.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It names Inngest specifically, giving it a clear niche and low conflict risk, but the surrounding language is generic enough that it could overlap with other background-job / serverless skills.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 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/inngest/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 4 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.