CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

51

Quality

56%

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-claude/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

53%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 and reasonably concise, but it reads as product documentation for an external tool rather than actionable instructions Claude can execute: it lacks any usage code or concrete workflow for invoking the wrapper. Promotional lines pad an otherwise efficient layout.

Suggestions

Add an executable usage example showing how to wrap a tool call (code or a concrete invocation pattern) so actionability moves above 3.

Reframe 'How It Works' as a Claude-executable workflow with explicit validation/checkpoint steps rather than a description of the product's automatic behavior.

Remove promotional filler ('every AI agent needs', 'Free forever') to tighten conciseness toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Sections and the failure-classification table are token-efficient and skip concepts Claude already knows; held below 5 by promotional fluff ('The reliability wrapper every AI agent needs', 'Free forever. Built by the Genesis Agent Marketplace.') that earns no instructional value.

4 / 5

Actionability

Only the install command is executable; 'How It Works' describes Guardian's internal behavior in prose with no code or steps for actually wrapping a tool call, leaving minimal concrete guidance for execution.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four 'How It Works' steps are sequenced, but they describe the product's automatic behavior rather than a workflow Claude performs, and no validation/checkpoint steps are given for the reader to follow.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized sections and no nested references (no bundle directories present); not a 5 because the content is marginally over the simple-skill line and carries inline promotional material.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 clearly conveys what the skill does with several concrete actions and failure modes, but omits any explicit 'when to use it' trigger guidance, capping completeness. Trigger terms are relevant but lack natural-language synonyms users would say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers (e.g., 'Use when tool calls fail mid-task, return malformed JSON, or hit rate limits').

Expand trigger terms with common synonyms a user might say ('tool errors', 'broken tool calls', 'API failures', 'retry failures') to lift trigger_term_quality.

Spell out one concrete recovery mechanic instead of the generic 'fixes'/'learns' to push specificity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions ('Monitors, retries, fixes, and learns') plus four named failure modes ('truncated JSON, timeouts, rate limits, and mid-chain failures'); falls short of 5 because 'fixes' and 'learns' stay generic without enumerating the recovery mechanics.

4 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (reliability wrapper that monitors/retries/fixes/learns) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant domain terms ('tool failures', 'truncated JSON', 'timeouts', 'rate limits') but misses common variations/synonyms and natural user phrasings; not a 4 because coverage of natural trigger language is incomplete.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (tool-call reliability/recovery) with fairly distinct triggers; not a 5 because 'reliability wrapper' still overlaps broadly with general error-handling skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.