gws-forms

Read and write Google Forms.

Quality

45%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/gws-forms/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%

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

This is a reasonably well-structured skill that provides a good overview of the Google Forms API via the gws CLI, with appropriate delegation to the shared skill and discovery commands. However, it lacks concrete executable examples (e.g., creating a form and adding items) and the two-step create workflow could be presented as an explicit numbered sequence with validation.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example showing the two-step form creation workflow: a `gws forms forms create` command followed by a `gws forms forms batchUpdate` command with actual --params/--json values.

Present the create-then-update workflow as an explicit numbered sequence (1. Create empty form, 2. Note the returned form ID, 3. Call batchUpdate to add items) rather than burying it in the API description.

Trim the 'Important' note in the create description to just the essential constraint: 'Only title/document_title are set on create; use batchUpdate to add items and settings.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient, but the long explanation about forms.create (copied from API docs about which fields are copied and the two-step process) is somewhat verbose. The 'Important' note could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides CLI command patterns and discovery commands, but lacks concrete executable examples of actual form creation or batchUpdate usage. No example of --params or --json flags with real values.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The create workflow (create empty form, then update to add items) is mentioned but not clearly sequenced with explicit steps or validation. The discovery workflow (help → schema → build command) is present but implicit rather than explicitly sequenced.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Clean structure with a prerequisite reference to shared skill, clear sections, and appropriate use of the discovery commands pattern to avoid inlining all API details. The skill is concise enough that no additional file references are needed.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

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 extremely terse—it identifies the domain (Google Forms) and two high-level actions but lacks specific capabilities, trigger terms, and any 'Use when' guidance. It would benefit significantly from listing concrete actions and explicit trigger conditions to help Claude select it appropriately from a large skill set.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'Google Forms', 'survey', 'questionnaire', 'form responses', 'create a form'.

List more specific concrete actions such as 'create forms, add questions, read responses, edit form settings, share forms'.

Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as 'survey', 'quiz', 'form builder', or 'Google form responses'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Google Forms) and two actions (read and write), but does not list more specific concrete actions like creating questions, editing responses, adding sections, or exporting results.	2 / 3
Completeness	It answers 'what' at a basic level (read and write Google Forms) but completely lacks any 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, placing this at 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Google Forms' is a strong natural keyword users would say, but the description misses common variations like 'survey', 'questionnaire', 'form responses', or 'Google form creation'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Google Forms' is fairly specific and distinguishable from generic document or file skills, but 'read and write' is generic enough that it could overlap with other Google Workspace skills (Sheets, Docs) without clearer scoping.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Repository: googleworkspace/cli
Commit: a3768d0

Reviewed: 3 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.