CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

n8n-validation-expert

Interpret validation errors and guide fixing them. Use when encountering validation errors, validation warnings, false positives, operator structure issues, or need help understanding validation results. Also use when asking about validation profiles, error types, the validation loop process, or auto-fix capabilities. Consult this skill whenever a validate_node or validate_workflow call returns errors or warnings — it knows which warnings are false positives and which errors need real fixes.

Quality

82%

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

81%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.

An operationally excellent body: concrete tool-call syntax, exact data shapes, explicit validation feedback loops, and hard-won false-positive knowledge Claude could not reconstruct on its own. Its weaknesses are redundancy — timing stats and the iterative-loop message repeated several times, plus a Summary section that recaps the body — and references to three detail files that are not present in the bundle being evaluated.

Suggestions

State the "validation is iterative (2-3 cycles)" fact once and delete its repetitions in the telemetry pattern, the JS example, and the Summary; the timing statistics (23s/58s) add little and can go entirely.

Trim or remove the closing Summary section — six of its key points restate earlier sections verbatim.

Move the four known false-positive issues (full message text, confirmation conditions, issue links) into FALSE_POSITIVES.md and keep only a one-line pointer plus the strictest caveat (don't run default n8n_autofix_workflow on the error-output-config false positive), and ship the three referenced .md files with the skill so the links resolve.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly dense with genuinely non-obvious operational knowledge, but the timing statistics ("23s thinking, 58s fixing", "2-3 iterations") are repeated in at least four places (Validation Philosophy, the telemetry pattern, the JS example, and the Summary), the "validation is iterative" message is restated three times, and the closing Summary section largely re-states earlier sections. Version-pinned details (n8n-mcp 2.63.0/2.85.0, issue #1111's full diagnostic text) are woven through the body rather than isolated, which the guidelines penalize. This matches anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened") better than anchor 4's "minor instances".

3 / 5

Actionability

Every section gives copy-paste-ready tool calls with exact parameters: validate_node({...}) with profile settings, n8n_autofix_workflow with applyFixes/confidenceThreshold/fixTypes, a cleanStaleConnections operation, and the pinned-data run path including the exact item shape ("[{\"json\": {...}}]") with the flat-object mistake called out. Error examples arrive with their fix text, and false positives come with precise confirmation conditions and remediation. This is a full anchor-5 match — executable guidance covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The core loop is explicit and re-validated at every stage: validate → read errors → fix → validate again, with recovery strategies sequenced for each failure mode and a dedicated "Running the workflow after it validates" section that walks trigger-detection, pinned-data, consent, and reading EXECUTION_FAILED results. The feedback-loop pattern the rubric rewards is the skill's central organizing principle, and a checklist reference exists for review workflows — a clear anchor-5 match.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References to ERROR_CATALOG.md, FALSE_POSITIVES.md, and REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md are bolded, one level deep, and consolidated in a "Detailed Guides" section, with the body correctly holding summaries and deferring full per-case detail — matching anchor 4 ("good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps"). It is not anchor 5 because the bundle contains none of the three referenced files (verified: no references/ directory or sibling .md files exist), and some catalog-grade detail (the four known-false-positive issues with full message text and links) is inlined in the body even though FALSE_POSITIVES.md is its designated home.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 well-constructed description with an explicit, multi-clause trigger section that clearly answers both what and when — the completeness is exemplary. Its main weakness is that it never names the platform (n8n) or its workflow/node domain, leaving the capability statement generic and slightly raising conflict risk with other validation-flavored skills.

Suggestions

Open with the platform: "Interpret and fix n8n workflow/node validation errors (n8n-mcp validate_node / validate_workflow)..." — this lifts specificity and makes "n8n validation" a matching trigger term.

State the concrete capability set as actions (interpret error types, choose a validation profile, apply auto-fixes, spot false positives) instead of the generic "guide fixing them".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Interpret validation errors and guide fixing them" names the actions but stays generic — the platform (n8n) and the concrete artifacts (workflows, nodes) are never named, and the deeper capabilities (profile selection, auto-fix) are only hinted at as trigger terms. It matches anchor 3 ("names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive") better than anchor 4, whose examples list several concrete actions with only minor gaps.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the what ("Interpret validation errors and guide fixing them... it knows which warnings are false positives and which errors need real fixes") and a triple-reinforced when ("Use when encountering validation errors...", "Also use when asking about validation profiles...", "Consult this skill whenever a validate_node or validate_workflow call returns errors or warnings"). This is a clear anchor-5 match with concrete trigger phrases, well above anchor 4's "'when' could be more explicit".

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong domain vocabulary — "validation errors", "validation warnings", "false positives", "validation profiles", "auto-fix", plus the exact tool names "validate_node" and "validate_workflow". It falls short of anchor 5 because natural user phrasings like "n8n validation", "workflow won't validate", or "fix validation errors" are missing — notably the word "n8n" itself never appears.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tool-name triggers ("validate_node", "validate_workflow") are highly distinctive, but "validation errors" and "false positives" alone are generic words that overlap with schema- or form-validation skills in a multi-skill environment — anchor 4 ("mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills") rather than anchor 5's "clear niche with distinct triggers", since naming n8n would have removed the residual overlap.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (524 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 7 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

czlonkowski/n8n-skills

Path

skills/n8n-validation-expert/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.