CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

do-not-retry-without-diagnosis

Common mistake — retrying the same failing command or API call without understanding why it failed. Always diagnose the root cause before retrying anything.

63

Quality

75%

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 ./memory_data/skills/do-not-retry-without-diagnosis/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The content is a tight, well-organized instruction skill that respects token budget, gives a concrete diagnostic decision tree, sequences the workflow with a pre-retry checkpoint, and needs no external references. It exemplifies the concise, actionable common-mistakes pattern.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (mistake pattern, fix, decision questions, anti-pattern) earns its place, matching the level-3 'lean and efficient' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and actionable: a clear transient-vs-permanent decision tree with specific examples (network timeout, rate limit, wrong input, missing resource, permission denied) and directed actions; the scoring note confirms absence of code is not penalized when guidance is actionable, so this clears level 3 rather than stopping at the pseudocode level-2 anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The flow is clearly sequenced (fail -> read error -> diagnose -> classify transient/permanent -> act) with the diagnostic step acting as an explicit checkpoint before any retry; this is a simple single-purpose skill with no destructive/batch operations, so the missing-checkpoint cap does not apply and the simple-skill carve-out supports a 3.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a sub-50-line single-purpose skill with no need for external references, and it is organized into clear labeled sections (Mistake pattern, Fix, Questions to ask, Anti-pattern); the simple-skills note allows a 3 from well-organized sections alone, and no nested/deep references exist to penalize it.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 communicates a common mistake and its fix in concise, third-person-imperative voice, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and relies on a narrow set of trigger terms. It is competent but mid-tier across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause (e.g., 'Use when a command, tool call, or API request fails and a retry is being considered') to raise completeness and give clear activation guidance.

Broaden natural trigger terms users would actually say — add variations like 'failed command', 'API error', 'error message', 'retry failed' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Reframe as a third-person capability statement listing concrete actions (e.g., 'Diagnoses failed commands and API calls, classifies errors as transient or permanent, and decides whether to retry with backoff or fix the root cause') to strengthen specificity and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and a couple of concrete actions ('retrying the same failing command or API call', 'diagnose the root cause') but is not a comprehensive list of specific actions, matching the level-2 anchor rather than the multiple-action level-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what to do (diagnose root cause before retrying) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2, and it is not level 1 because the 'what' is clearly present.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some natural terms a user might say ('retrying', 'failing command', 'API call', 'root cause') but lacks common variations and broader coverage, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than the level-3 broad-coverage anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The anti-retry-without-diagnosis framing is a recognizable niche, but 'retry'/'failing command'/'API call' triggers overlap with general debugging and troubleshooting skills, so it could still conflict; not generic enough for 1, not clearly distinct enough for 3.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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
aiming-lab/MetaClaw
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.