CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

flows-external-app-submit

Final gate of the Flows app certification flow for external submission. Verifies that flows-app-brief, flows-code-review, and flows-design-review have all been run and are in a passing state (App-Brief.md complete, 0 Must Fix in latest code review, design average ≥ 3.8), then runs `npx @cognite/cli apps submit` to zip the repo and pre-populate the submission form. Use when the user asks to submit a Flows app for certification, run flows-external-app-submit, or finalize an app for external review.

Quality

91%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

This is a high-quality procedural gate skill: every verification step is executable with exact commands, regexes, and failure messages, and the workflow has validation checkpoints, a gate table, and clear recovery paths before any irreversible submit. The weaknesses are minor — some repeated rationale text and the conditional stub templates living inline in an already-long body rather than in a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and procedural with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every step carries a command, regex, or exact failure message. Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it below a 5: the SKIPPED-status explanation repeats nearly verbatim in Steps 2 and 3, and the 'git archive HEAD' rationale is stated three times (precondition 4, Step 4 intro, and the WARN message).

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact git ls-files / sort -V / stat commands, exact regexes ('^- Must Fix open: (\d+)$', '^- Average score: (\d+(?:\.\d+)?)$'), exact failure and confirmation messages, complete copy-paste stub templates, and a concrete pass/fail table format. This matches the 5 anchor's copy-paste-ready standard with common cases covered.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–8 are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint at each step, a preflight checklist, a pass/fail gate table before any submit action, and error-recovery paths that name the exact next-step skill to run. Feedback loops (fail → re-run prior skill → re-run this skill) are present, matching the 5 anchor's checklist-and-recovery standard.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with clear step headers, no nested or buried references, and the core procedure appropriately inline. One organization gap: the ~45-line stub template section is only needed on the rare 'Quick submit' branch and could live in a references/ file to keep the always-loaded 270-line body lean — a minor gap consistent with the 4 anchor rather than the 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: third-person voice, concrete pass criteria with exact thresholds, an exact CLI command, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases. It cleanly separates the final gate from the three review skills that precede it. The only weakness is mild — a few synonyms for the trigger terms are missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions with exact thresholds — 'App-Brief.md complete, 0 Must Fix in latest code review, design average ≥ 3.8' — plus the exact command 'npx @cognite/cli apps submit' to zip the repo and pre-populate the submission form. This is comprehensive, concrete coverage matching the top anchor; nothing material is missing, so it is not a 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is verifying three named prior skills' passing state and then running the CLI submit, and the 'when' is an explicit 'Use when the user asks to...' clause with three concrete trigger phrases. This matches the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural and varied ('submit a Flows app for certification', 'run flows-external-app-submit', 'finalize an app for external review'), including the skill name itself. A few plausible synonyms ('certify', 'publish') are absent, so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor but is clearly above the 3 anchor's 'missing common variations'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It claims a clear niche as the 'Final gate of the Flows app certification flow' and distinguishes itself from sibling skills by naming flows-code-review and flows-design-review as artifacts it verifies rather than reruns. Minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

cognitedata/builder-skills

Path

skills/flows-external-app-submit/SKILL.md

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.