gitlab-server
GitLab server (on-prem) integration via Apideck's Issue Tracking unified API — same methods work across every connector in Issue Tracking, switch by changing `serviceId`. Use when the user wants to read, write, or comment on tickets and issues in GitLab server (on-prem). Routes through Apideck with serviceId "gitlab-server".
83
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly identifies its niche (GitLab server on-prem issue tracking via Apideck) and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is that the specific capabilities listed are somewhat general ('read, write, or comment') rather than enumerating more granular actions like creating issues, updating status, or managing labels.
Suggestions
Expand the capability list with more specific actions, e.g., 'create issues, update issue status, list issues, add comments, manage labels' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (GitLab server issue tracking) and some actions ('read, write, or comment on tickets and issues'), but doesn't list comprehensive specific actions like creating issues, closing issues, listing labels, assigning users, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (GitLab server integration via Apideck's Issue Tracking unified API for reading, writing, commenting on tickets/issues) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when the user wants to read, write, or comment on tickets and issues in GitLab server'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords: 'GitLab server', 'on-prem', 'tickets', 'issues', 'comment', 'read', 'write', 'Apideck', 'Issue Tracking', and 'serviceId'. These cover terms users would naturally use when working with GitLab server issues. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with specific triggers: 'GitLab server (on-prem)', 'serviceId "gitlab-server"', and routing through Apideck. This clearly distinguishes it from other issue tracking connectors or cloud GitLab skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured connector skill with good actionability through executable examples and excellent progressive disclosure via clear references to related skills. Its main weaknesses are some marketing-style verbosity (the portability section) and a workflow that could be more explicitly sequenced, especially given the beta status and the need to verify coverage before making calls.
Suggestions
Trim the 'Portable across 6 connectors' section to 2-3 lines — the portability point is already made in the intro and the code example speaks for itself.
Add an explicit numbered workflow: 1) Verify coverage → 2) Call unified API → 3) Handle UnsupportedOperationError → 4) Fall back to Proxy, with a clear decision checkpoint after step 1.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill contains some unnecessary verbosity — the 'Portable across 6 connectors' section is marketing-heavy and explains the value proposition of Apideck which Claude doesn't need. The 'When to use this skill' section over-explains. However, the code examples and quick facts are reasonably lean. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable TypeScript code for listing tickets, a working curl command for coverage verification, and a complete proxy API escape hatch with real headers. The examples are copy-paste ready with only environment variables needing substitution. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There's an implicit workflow (check coverage → use unified API → fall back to proxy if unsupported), but it's not explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints. The beta status warning mentions verifying coverage but doesn't provide a clear decision tree or error-handling feedback loop for when operations fail. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure with a concise overview and well-signaled one-level-deep references to SDK skills, best practices, connector coverage, OpenAPI specs, and official docs. The 'See also' section provides clear navigation without nesting. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- apideck-libraries/api-skills
- Commit
9e04d86
- 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.