Scan a codebase for missing or inadequate security-aware error handling and propose context-appropriate fixes. Use when the user asks to audit, review, scan, or check error handling in code; mentions "error handling audit", "exception handling review", "security error handling"; uploads a codebase wanting a security review focused on error handling; or says things like "find missing try/catch", "check for unhandled exceptions", "detect empty catch blocks", "identify information leakage in error messages", or "make my error handling more secure".
94
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.31xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%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 an excellent skill description that hits all the marks. It provides specific capabilities (scanning for security-aware error handling issues and proposing fixes), includes a comprehensive 'Use when...' clause with numerous natural trigger terms, and occupies a clearly distinct niche. The description uses proper third-person voice and is thorough without being padded.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'scan a codebase for missing or inadequate security-aware error handling' and 'propose context-appropriate fixes'. The description clearly names the domain (security-aware error handling) and the concrete outputs (scanning and proposing fixes). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (scan codebase for missing/inadequate security-aware error handling and propose fixes) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with multiple detailed trigger scenarios covering user actions and phrases). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'audit', 'review', 'scan', 'check error handling', 'error handling audit', 'exception handling review', 'find missing try/catch', 'check for unhandled exceptions', 'detect empty catch blocks', 'identify information leakage in error messages', 'make my error handling more secure'. These are highly natural phrases. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining security + error handling + code auditing. The specific focus on security-aware error handling (not general code review, not general security scanning, not general error handling) makes it clearly distinguishable from adjacent skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 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 well-crafted skill with strong actionability, clear workflow sequencing, and good use of progressive disclosure via the external ERROR_PATTERNS.md reference. The main weakness is minor verbosity—the promotional link, some redundant phrasing in the secret safety section, and a few areas that could be tightened without losing clarity. Overall it is a high-quality, production-ready skill.
Suggestions
Remove the self-promotional link ('This is skill dancon-error-handling by Danielyan Consulting: https://danielyan.consulting') as it wastes tokens and provides no actionable value to Claude.
Consolidate the three secret safety sub-sections to reduce overlap—the 'reviewing existing code' and 'proposing fixes' bullets share significant conceptual ground that could be merged.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured, but includes some unnecessary elaboration. Phrases like 'single source of truth' and some redundant restatements (e.g., secret safety rules repeated across three sub-bullets with overlapping concerns) could be tightened. The self-promotional link adds no value for Claude. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance: a clear procedure with numbered steps, specific tool usage ('view' the project root), a defined severity scale with precise criteria, a structured finding format (ID, File, Severity, Category, etc.), and explicit rules for what to flag vs. leave alone. The instructions are specific enough to execute without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is clearly sequenced (Step 0 preparation → Step 1 file-by-file review → Step 2 findings report) with explicit prioritization when context limits apply, clear skip/include rules for test files and generated code, and a well-defined output structure. The procedure includes validation-like checkpoints (checking against the anti-pattern catalogue) and graceful degradation instructions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill appropriately references an external file ('references/ERROR_PATTERNS.md') for the detailed anti-pattern catalogue rather than inlining it, keeping the main skill lean. Sections are well-organized with clear headers, and the content is appropriately split between overview/procedure and detailed reference material one level deep. | 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.
99b52ce
Table of Contents
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.