api-documentation
API documentation workflow for generating OpenAPI specs, creating developer guides, and maintaining comprehensive API documentation.
54
43%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/antigravity-api-documentation/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 does a good job listing specific capabilities within the API documentation domain and is clearly distinguishable from other skills. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause which limits its completeness score, and it could benefit from additional natural trigger terms that users commonly use when requesting API documentation help.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause such as 'Use when the user asks about API docs, Swagger files, OpenAPI specifications, REST API references, or endpoint documentation.'
Include common synonyms and variations like 'Swagger', 'REST API docs', 'API reference', '.yaml', '.json' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'generating OpenAPI specs', 'creating developer guides', and 'maintaining comprehensive API documentation'. These are distinct, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with specific actions, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The 'when' is only implied by the domain context. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'OpenAPI specs', 'API documentation', and 'developer guides', but misses common variations users might say such as 'Swagger', 'REST API docs', 'endpoint documentation', 'API reference', or file extensions like '.yaml'/'.json'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on API documentation, OpenAPI specs, and developer guides creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general documentation or coding skills. The combination of these specific terms makes it distinctly identifiable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
20%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a hollow orchestration template that delegates all real work to other skills without providing any concrete guidance, examples, or executable content. The 7 phases are repetitively structured with vague action items that Claude already knows how to do. The skill would benefit enormously from actual OpenAPI spec examples, concrete code snippets, and specific validation steps rather than abstract checklists.
Suggestions
Add a concrete OpenAPI spec example (even a minimal one) showing the expected output format, path definitions, and schema structure.
Replace vague action items like 'Create OpenAPI schema' and 'Configure security' with specific, executable instructions or code snippets (e.g., actual YAML for an OpenAPI path definition).
Add validation steps within phases—for example, how to validate an OpenAPI spec using a linter like `spectral lint openapi.yaml` with expected output.
Consolidate the 7 nearly identical phase structures into a more concise format, perhaps a table or condensed list, since the repetitive template adds bulk without value.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is highly repetitive with 7 phases that all follow the same template of 'Skills to Invoke / Actions / Copy-Paste Prompts' with vague, generic action items. The numbered lists are superficial (e.g., 'Choose platform', 'Design structure') and add no value Claude doesn't already know. The copy-paste prompts are trivially simple delegations to other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no concrete, executable guidance anywhere—no actual OpenAPI spec examples, no code snippets, no specific commands, no real templates. Every action item is vague and abstract (e.g., 'Create OpenAPI schema', 'Add schemas', 'Configure security'). The copy-paste prompts just delegate to other skills without providing any actual content. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The phases are sequenced logically and there is a quality gates checklist at the end, which provides some validation structure. However, there are no validation checkpoints within phases, no feedback loops for error recovery, and the steps within each phase are too vague to be actionable. The checklist items are also generic with no criteria for what 'complete' or 'working' means. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content references other skills via '@skill-name' patterns, providing some level of progressive disclosure. However, the main document itself is a wall of repetitive phase blocks that could be significantly condensed, and the references to other skills are not clearly signaled as links or files—they're just names mentioned in copy-paste prompts. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- boisenoise/skills-collections
- Commit
431bfad
- 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.