sentry
Fetches Sentry error context using sentry-cli and helps diagnose and fix bugs in the current codebase. Use when the user wants to investgate or fix a Sentry error.
82
80%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
77%
0.96xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/sentry/skills/sentry/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
75%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 is functional and clearly scoped to Sentry error investigation with an explicit 'Use when' clause. Its main weaknesses are moderate specificity (could enumerate more concrete actions) and limited trigger term coverage (missing common synonyms like 'Sentry issue', 'exception', 'crash'). There is also a minor typo ('investgate' instead of 'investigate').
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions, e.g., 'retrieves stack traces, event details, and breadcrumbs from Sentry using sentry-cli'.
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations like 'Sentry issue', 'exception', 'crash', 'error tracking', or 'Sentry event'.
Fix the typo 'investgate' → 'investigate'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Sentry errors) and some actions ('fetches error context', 'diagnose and fix bugs'), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like retrieving stack traces, parsing event details, or suggesting code patches. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (fetches Sentry error context using sentry-cli, helps diagnose and fix bugs) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when the user wants to investigate or fix a Sentry error'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Sentry error', 'sentry-cli', 'diagnose', 'fix bugs' which are relevant, but misses common variations users might say like 'Sentry issue', 'exception', 'crash', 'error tracking', or 'Sentry event'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very distinct niche — Sentry-specific error investigation with sentry-cli is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The Sentry-specific tooling and terminology create a clear, unique trigger. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides a clear multi-phase workflow for diagnosing Sentry errors. Its main strengths are excellent actionability with concrete CLI commands and tools, a thorough workflow with validation checkpoints, and good progressive disclosure via example files. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in the guidance sections (anti-patterns, defense in depth, codebase patterns) which cover territory Claude can largely reason about independently.
Suggestions
Condense the 'Anti-Patterns to Avoid', 'When Defense in Depth is Appropriate', and 'Match Existing Codebase Patterns' sections into a single compact section — Claude understands these software engineering principles and needs only brief reminders rather than detailed explanations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is generally well-structured but includes some sections that could be tightened. The 'Anti-Patterns to Avoid', 'When Defense in Depth is Appropriate', and 'Match Existing Codebase Patterns' sections, while useful, add significant length and cover judgment calls Claude can largely make on its own. The key distinction callout and some of the rhetorical questions in root cause analysis are somewhat verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, executable commands (sentry-cli context, kit-cli symbols/search/file-tree/dependencies), a clear URL-to-ID extraction table, specific bash commands for installation, and a detailed fix quality checklist. Each phase has specific, actionable steps rather than vague guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase workflow (Gather Context → Understand Codebase → Root Cause Analysis → Propose Fix) is clearly sequenced with numbered steps. The fix quality checklist serves as an explicit validation checkpoint before proposing changes. The 'CRITICAL - do not skip' annotation on upstream tracing and the feedback loop of tracing bad data to its source demonstrate strong workflow design. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-organized sections and references five detailed example files in an examples/ directory, organized by error class in a table. References are one level deep and clearly signaled. The main SKILL.md stays focused on the workflow while pointing to detailed walkthroughs for specific error classes. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- cased/claude-code-plugins
- Commit
a026516
- 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.