Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

Blog Docs Log inGet started

SkillPublic

gws-script

Manage Google Apps Script projects.

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

76%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 is a concise, well-structured CLI overview that delegates detail to `gws schema` and links to sibling skills, with executable command patterns. Its main weakness is the absence of validation/verification steps for the destructive `updateContent` operation, and an unfinished `scripts.run` entry.

Suggestions

Add a validation checkpoint before destructive calls, e.g. "Before `updateContent` (which clears all files), confirm with the user or run `gws script projects get` to capture current content."

Complete the empty `scripts.run` entry with a one-line description and a minimal example using `gws schema script.scripts.run`.

Optionally show one complete worked example, e.g. `gws script projects create --params '{"title":"My Script"}'`, to lift actionability to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean (~50 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and offloads detail to `gws --help` and `gws schema` rather than padding, matching the score-5 anchor "Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place"; not lower because no over-explanation of known concepts is present.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete executable commands are provided (`gws script <resource> <method> [flags]`, `gws script --help`, `gws schema script.<resource>.<method>`) and a clear instruction to build `--params`/`--json` from schema output, fitting the score-4 anchor "Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps"; not 5 because no complete copy-paste example with a real resource/method/params is shown and the `scripts.run` entry is left empty.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A discovery sequence is present (browse with `--help`, inspect with `gws schema`, build flags), but no validation/verification checkpoint exists even though `updateContent` is destructive ("This clears all the existing files in the project"), so per the rubric cap workflow_clarity is held at 3; not 4 because explicit validation before destructive operations is missing.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is clean (prerequisite note, usage, helper commands, API resources, discovering commands) with clearly signaled one-level-deep cross-links to `../gws-shared/SKILL.md` and `../gws-script-push/SKILL.md`, matching the score-4 anchor "Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; references mostly clear"; not 5 because the inlined API resource/method list reads as reference material that could be split out, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

48%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 correctly names a specific niche (Google Apps Script) and uses third-person voice, but it is a single generic verb with no "Use when..." trigger guidance and no concrete actions. It is distinct yet under-specified for triggering.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete actions, e.g. "Create, update, and deploy Google Apps Script projects and run script processes."

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to manage Apps Script projects, list script processes, or deploy script versions."

Include natural synonyms/extensions users say, such as "Apps Script", ".gs files", or "script project".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Manage Google Apps Script projects." names the domain (Google Apps Script) but the only action verb is the generic "Manage", matching the score-2 anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"; it does not reach 3 because no concrete actions (e.g., create, deploy, run) are listed.	2 / 5
Completeness	There is a clear "what" ("Manage Google Apps Script projects") but no "when"/"Use when..." clause, so per the rubric cap it stays at 3 ("Has a clear 'what' but 'when' is missing or only weakly implied"); not 4 because no explicit trigger guidance is present.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Google Apps Script" is a relevant keyword users actually say, but common variations/synonyms ("Apps Script", ".gs", "gas", "script project") are absent, fitting the score-3 anchor "Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms"; not 4 because keyword coverage is thin rather than merely missing a few.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Google Apps Script projects" is a clear, fairly niche domain with minor overlap risk against other gws skills, matching the score-4 anchor "Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills"; not 5 because the absence of explicit distinct trigger phrases keeps it from minimal conflict risk.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: googleworkspace/cli
Path: skills/gws-script/SKILL.md
Revision: a3768d0

Reviewed: 27 days ago

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.

gws-script

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?