CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

query-parameters-api-custom-commands

How to author custom commands for the query-parameters-api CLI using the co-generated SDK.

56

Quality

63%

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/query-parameters-openapi-as-objects/.agents/skills/custom-commands/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 content is lean, concrete, and well-structured with executable Rust examples, but the SDK sub-client list is left as a stub and the regeneration workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints. Filling the stub and adding a post-regeneration verification step would raise the actionability and workflow-clarity scores.

Suggestions

Populate the "Available SDK Clients" section with the actual sub-clients (or link to a reference file listing them) so users can target real resources.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint after `fern generate` (e.g., confirm custom.rs is unchanged / run `cargo build` to verify the custom command still compiles).

De-duplicate the client()/block_on() usage between the register example and the "Key Patterns" section, or fold the patterns into the example as inline comments.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Rust/clap/cargo competence, but the "Key Patterns" section repeats the client()/block_on() calls already shown in the register example, a minor redundancy that keeps it below score 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready Rust code and build commands, but the "Available SDK Clients" section is a stub that never lists the actual sub-clients, leaving a minor gap for targeting specific resources.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-3 are listed for adding a command, but there are no validation checkpoints, and the destructive/batch regeneration step (fern generate overwriting generated files) lacks a verify-custom.rs-preserved check, triggering the cap at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is organized into clear, well-signaled sections (Overview, Architecture, Regeneration Safety, Build & Test) with no deep reference nesting, though the stub SDK-clients section is a minor organization gap that prevents a 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 covers and is highly distinct, but it omits any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance and only names a single concrete action. Adding a Use-when clause with natural trigger phrases would lift the completeness and trigger-term dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when extending the query-parameters-api CLI with new commands').

List 1-2 more concrete actions beyond 'author custom commands' (e.g., 'register commands, call the SDK client, handle async results').

Include natural synonyms a user might say (e.g., 'add a command', 'extend the CLI') alongside the technical SDK phrasing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "author custom commands for the query-parameters-api CLI using the co-generated SDK" names the domain and one concrete action (authoring custom commands), but lists no further specific actions, matching the score-3 anchor rather than the multi-action score-4 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (author custom commands using the SDK) but no "Use when..." trigger guidance, so per the rubric's missing-trigger cap it cannot exceed 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords like "custom commands" and "CLI" a developer might say, but lacks natural synonyms or variations and leans on technical jargon ("co-generated SDK"), fitting between the score-2 and score-4 anchors at score 3.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Tying the skill to the specific named "query-parameters-api CLI" and its "co-generated SDK" carves out a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills.

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.

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.