CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

tool-use-guardian

FREE — Intelligent tool-call reliability wrapper. Monitors, retries, fixes, and learns from tool failures. Auto-recovers from truncated JSON, timeouts, rate limits, and mid-chain failures.

Quality

64%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/tool-use-guardian/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 body is a well-organized, readable product datasheet rather than an actionable skill: it explains what Guardian does but gives Claude almost nothing to execute beyond an install command. Marketing padding and cross-promotion further reduce token efficiency, and workflow steps describe tool internals instead of an agent-executable process.

Suggestions

Replace the behavior descriptions with executable guidance: concrete pre-call validation checks, an actual retry-with-backoff pattern (code or commands), and a checkpoint/resume procedure Claude can run when a chain breaks.

Cut promotional content — "Free forever. Built by the Genesis Agent Marketplace.", the Related Skills cross-promotion, and the Links section — which spends tokens without instructing.

Expand the failure table's one-line recovery actions into concrete recipes (e.g., exact backoff timings, how to re-request truncated output with smaller chunks) so the guidance is copy-paste ready for the common failure cases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 'How It Works' steps and failure table are tight and informative, but the body carries several sections that spend tokens without instructing: the sales pitch ("The reliability wrapper every AI agent needs"), "Free forever. Built by the Genesis Agent Marketplace.", the Related Skills cross-promotion, and the Links section. This is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary' padded content rather than the lean 5 or the heavily padded 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

The only executable element is the install command (`npx skills add ...`); everything else describes the product's behavior at a high level ("Re-fetch with pagination or smaller chunks", "Exponential backoff, max 3 retries") without any code, configuration, or concrete steps Claude can follow. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute' more than the 3 anchor's incomplete-but-partially-executable guidance.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 (Pre-Call Validation, Failure Classification, Chain Protection, Learning) are clearly labeled and coherent, and concepts like checkpoints and escalation appear. However, these describe what the wrapped product does internally rather than a workflow Claude executes, so actionable validation checkpoints (validate -> fix -> retry) for the agent are implicit at best, matching the 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single-file body is well-organized with clear section headers, a scannable failure-mode table, and no nested or dead references (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist, and the body points to none). It misses a 5 because the ~72-line body slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill bar and includes off-topic promotional sections (Related Skills, marketplace links) that dilute the structure.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 communicates a clear niche with concrete actions and fairly natural trigger keywords, but it lacks any explicit 'when to use' guidance and leads with marketing fluff ("FREE —", "Intelligent") rather than capability statements. It is above midpoint overall, anchored down by the missing trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g. "Use when tool calls return truncated or malformed JSON, APIs time out or rate-limit mid-task, or a multi-step tool chain breaks partway."

Remove marketing terms ("FREE —", "Intelligent") and the "wrapper" abstraction; lead with the concrete actions instead.

Include common user-side synonyms such as "failed tool calls", "API errors", and "retry logic" to strengthen trigger matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Monitors, retries, fixes, and learns from tool failures" and "Auto-recovers from truncated JSON, timeouts, rate limits, and mid-chain failures" name the domain plus several concrete actions and specific failure modes. It falls short of the 5 anchor because "fixes" is generic and coverage of what 'intelligent' adds is unstated, and it exceeds the 3 anchor (domain + 1-2 actions) comfortably.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (monitors, retries, fixes, learns from tool failures) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance; the failure list only weakly implies when. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3, and the 4 anchor requires an explicit (if imprecise) 'when' which is absent.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "tool failures", "truncated JSON", "timeouts", "rate limits", "retries", and "mid-chain failures" match what a user would say when hitting these problems. A few common variants (e.g., "API errors", "failed tool calls", "error handling") are missing, matching the 4 rather than the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Tool-call reliability wrapper" with triggers like "truncated JSON", "rate limits", and "mid-chain failures" is a fairly distinct niche. Minor overlap risk remains with generic error-handling/retry skills and self-described 'agent infrastructure' wrappers, fitting the 4 anchor better than the minimal-conflict 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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/tool-use-guardian/SKILL.md

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.