CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

openapi-request-body-ref-custom-commands

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

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

—

The risk profile of this skill

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

82%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.

The body delivers a complete, executable example with concrete build/test commands, a clear regeneration-safety story, and well-organized sections that assume Claude's competence. Its only weaknesses are mild redundancy between the main example and the Key Patterns section and the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient — a brief overview, an architecture map, and one complete executable example — but the 'Key Patterns' section repeats code already shown in full ('super::sdk::client(ctx)', 'block_on', the 'use' import). This is minor trimmable redundancy, matching anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

The register() example is copy-paste-ready Rust with real command names, followed by concrete 'cargo build' and 'openapi-request-body-ref get-catalog-image <image_id>' commands, plus a table of available sub-clients. This matches anchor 5 (fully executable, specific examples covering the common cases).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear and numbered: edit custom.rs, build, then run the command to test — an explicit test checkpoint is present. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when the build fails or the command errors), but it comfortably exceeds anchor 3's missing-checkpoint case.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained, with well-organized sections (Overview, Architecture, Adding a Custom Command, Regeneration Safety, Build & Test) and compact inline tables that don't warrant separate files. Minor organization overlap between the main example and the 'Key Patterns' section keeps this at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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.

The description clearly states what the skill does and is highly distinguishable thanks to the named CLI, but it completely lacks 'when to use' trigger guidance and natural keyword variations. Adding an explicit 'Use when...' clause would address its main weakness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when adding or extending commands in the openapi-request-body-ref CLI, or when the user wants new CLI subcommands backed by the generated SDK.'

Include natural trigger variations users would actually say — 'add a command to the CLI', 'extend the generated CLI', 'custom subcommand' — to improve keyword coverage.

Optionally enumerate one or two more concrete actions (registering commands, calling typed SDK methods) to lift specificity beyond a single action.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'author custom commands for the openapi-request-body-ref CLI using the co-generated SDK' names the domain and one concrete action with the SDK mechanism, but offers no broader coverage of what authoring involves. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive): it is more than the minimal/generic anchor 2, but does not list several specific actions as anchor 4 requires.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (authoring custom commands using the co-generated SDK) but there is no 'when' guidance at all — no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, which is exactly the anchor-3 case (clear what, when missing).

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'custom commands', 'CLI', and 'SDK' are keywords a user of this generated CLI would plausibly say, but the description misses natural variations such as 'add a command', 'extend the CLI', or 'Fern'. This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations/synonyms) rather than anchor 4's good keyword coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique project name 'openapi-request-body-ref' creates a clear niche; no other skill would plausibly trigger on this description. It matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk) and is more specific than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk' case.

5 / 5

Total

14

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

fern-api/fern

Path

seed/cli/openapi-request-body-ref/.agents/skills/custom-commands/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.