CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

nullable-request-body-custom-commands

How to author custom commands for the nullable-request-body CLI using the co-generated SDK.

57

Quality

64%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./seed/cli/nullable-request-body/.agents/skills/custom-commands/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable with executable code and commands, and is well-organized as a single cohesive inline skill with no need for external references. Its weaknesses are minor redundancy between the full example and the Key Patterns section and the absence of an explicit build/run validation checkpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint after building, e.g. 'Run `cargo build` and confirm it compiles before invoking your command; if it fails, fix custom.rs and rebuild'.

Remove the redundant `client(ctx)` and `block_on(...)` snippets in 'Key Patterns' or replace them with patterns not already shown in the register() example.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and code-focused with no concept over-explanation, but the 'Key Patterns' section repeats the `super::sdk::client(ctx)` and `super::sdk::block_on(...)` calls already shown in the full register() example, so it could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides complete, executable Rust in the register() example plus concrete `cargo build` and `nullable-request-body <command>` invocations, making the guidance copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 'Adding a Custom Command' steps and Build & Test section give a clear sequence, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. 'confirm the build compiles before running') or error-recovery feedback loop, leaving checkpoints implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files to reference and no content that needs splitting out; the body is well-organized into Overview, Architecture, Adding a Custom Command, Regeneration Safety, and Build & Test sections, which satisfies the 'no need for external references' allowance for a cohesive inline skill.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

57%

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 specific to a well-defined niche and unlikely to conflict with other skills, but it relies on project-specific jargon for trigger terms and lacks an explicit 'when to use' clause. Adding a 'Use when...' trigger and more natural phrasing would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when adding or modifying custom commands for the nullable-request-body CLI'.

Soften jargon with natural terms users would say, such as 'add a command' or 'extend the CLI', alongside 'custom commands' and 'SDK'.

List a second concrete action (e.g. 'register, call, and serialize typed request/response models') to move specificity from a single action to multiple.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("custom commands for the nullable-request-body CLI") and a concrete action ("author ... using the co-generated SDK"), but stops at one action rather than listing multiple specific operations, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It answers what the skill does (authoring custom commands via the co-generated SDK) but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords like "custom commands", "CLI", and "SDK", but the phrasing leans on project-specific jargon ("nullable-request-body", "co-generated SDK") and omits natural variations a user would say like "add a command" or "extend the CLI".

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description targets a very specific niche (the nullable-request-body CLI and its co-generated SDK), making it clearly distinguishable and unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
fern-api/fern
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.