CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

schemaless-request-body-examples-api-custom-commands

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

52

Quality

57%

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/schemaless-request-body-examples/.agents/skills/custom-commands/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

The body is well-structured and provides concrete Rust examples and build commands, but it has mild redundancy between the architecture and regeneration sections, an empty SDK-clients section, and lacks explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow. Filling the SDK client list and adding a build/verify feedback loop would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Populate the "Available SDK Clients" section with the actual sub-clients and representative methods instead of the placeholder, or link to where they can be discovered at generation time.

Deduplicate the file listing: keep the Regeneration Safety table and trim the Architecture ASCII block, or vice versa.

Add an explicit validation loop in Build & Test, e.g. "Run `cargo build`; if it fails, fix compile errors and rebuild before invoking the command."

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely lean and code-focused with no concept explanations, but the file layout is duplicated between the Architecture ASCII block and the Regeneration Safety table, and the "Available SDK Clients" section is a placeholder, so it could be tightened past the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete, near-executable Rust code and build commands, but the "Available SDK Clients" section offers only a parenthetical ("Sub-clients are derived from the API spec at generation time") with no actual client list, leaving a key detail missing per the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are sequenced (1. Edit custom.rs, 2. SDK clients, 3. Key patterns) and a Build & Test section exists, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g. "build, then run, fix on error"), matching the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clearly labeled sections (Overview, Architecture, Adding a Custom Command, Regeneration Safety, Build & Test) with no nested references, fitting the level-3 anchor for well-organized single-file skills.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

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 clearly states what the skill does, but it lacks explicit trigger guidance and relies on somewhat technical phrasing. Adding a "Use when..." clause and more natural trigger terms would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when adding or modifying custom commands for the schemaless-request-body-examples-api CLI."

Soften jargon like "co-generated SDK" toward terms a user would naturally say, such as "the bundled SDK client".

Optionally enumerate concrete actions (register commands, call SDK methods, run async calls) to lift specificity to level 3.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"How to author custom commands for the schemaless-request-body-examples-api CLI using the co-generated SDK" names a concrete domain and a single action (authoring custom commands via the SDK), but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions, so it stops short of the level-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does (authoring custom commands) but provides no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "custom commands", "CLI", and "SDK" are relevant, but the phrasing leans on technical jargon ("co-generated SDK") and omits common natural variations a user might say, matching the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The highly specific proper-noun scope ("schemaless-request-body-examples-api CLI") gives it a clear niche with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for an unrelated 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.