Read and write Google Docs.
55
45%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/gws-docs/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 too terse—it identifies the platform (Google Docs) and two high-level actions but lacks specific capabilities, trigger guidance, and natural keyword variations. It would be difficult for Claude to confidently select this skill over other document-related skills in a large skill library.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create, edit, read, or format a Google Doc, or mentions Google Docs, gdoc, or shared documents.'
List more specific concrete actions such as 'create documents, edit text, insert tables, apply formatting, extract content, and manage sharing permissions.'
Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as 'Google document', 'gdoc', 'Docs', or '.gdoc'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Google Docs) and two actions (read and write), but does not list more specific concrete actions like formatting, inserting tables, sharing, or commenting. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Answers 'what' at a basic level (read and write Google Docs) but completely lacks any 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also minimal, a score of 1 is appropriate. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Google Docs' which is a natural keyword users would say, but misses common variations like 'gdoc', 'Google document', 'Docs API', or related terms like 'edit', 'create', 'share'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Specifying 'Google Docs' provides some distinctiveness from generic document skills, but could overlap with other Google Workspace skills or general document editing skills without clearer trigger boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is well-structured with good progressive disclosure and appropriate references to related skills. However, it lacks concrete executable examples for core operations (create, get, batchUpdate) and includes verbose API description text that could be trimmed. Adding at least one complete working example and tightening the resource descriptions would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add at least one complete executable example for a common operation (e.g., `gws docs documents create --params title='My Doc'` and `gws docs documents get --params documentId='...'`)
Trim the `batchUpdate` description to essentials — remove the explanation of validation behavior and reply ordering that Claude can discover via `gws schema`
Add a validation/verification step for batchUpdate operations (e.g., 'After batchUpdate, verify changes with a `get` call')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the `batchUpdate` description is overly verbose with explanations Claude doesn't need (e.g., 'Each request is validated before being applied. If any request is not valid, then the entire request will fail...'). These read like API docs copy-pasted verbatim rather than distilled for Claude. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete CLI commands for discovery (`gws docs --help`, `gws schema`), but lacks executable examples of actually performing common operations like creating a doc, getting a doc, or doing a batchUpdate. The user is told to inspect methods but not shown a complete working example. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The discovery workflow (browse → inspect → build flags) is present but implicit. There's no explicit step-by-step for common tasks like creating or editing a document, and no validation/verification steps for batchUpdate operations which can be destructive. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with clear references: prerequisite points to shared skill, helper command links to write skill, and discovery section is well-placed. Content is appropriately split with one-level-deep references that are clearly signaled. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
a3768d0
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.