CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

validate-integration

Audit an existing Sim integration against the service API docs and repository conventions, then report and fix issues across tools, blocks, outputs, OAuth scopes, triggers, and registry entries. Use when validating or repairing a service integration under `apps/sim/tools`, `apps/sim/blocks`, or `apps/sim/triggers`.

77

Quality

97%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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.

An exceptionally thorough, actionable audit procedure with clear sequencing and explicit validation checkpoints — nearly all guidance is project-specific knowledge Claude could not derive on its own. The weaknesses are the monolithic single-file layout with no progressive disclosure into reference files, and minor redundancy from the closing checklist summary and severity lists restating earlier items.

Suggestions

Move the per-surface detail (e.g., the Step 3 tool checks, Step 4 block/subBlock checks, and the Step 8 severity taxonomy) into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., references/tool-checks.md, references/block-checks.md), keeping SKILL.md as a workflow overview with clearly signaled pointers.

Delete or compress the 'Checklist Summary' section, which restates the Step 1-8 section headers almost verbatim and adds ~18 lines of duplication; the severity-grouped report in Step 8 already serves as the final pass.

Consolidate the severity examples in Step 8 so they map to checklist items by reference rather than repeating them (e.g., 'Missing .trim() on ID fields' and 'Hardcoded scope arrays' appear in both the checklists and the severity lists).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific conventions Claude could not know (e.g., wandConfig prompt rules, tools.config coercion placement) and avoids explaining known concepts. However, the final 'Checklist Summary' (~17 items) and parts of the Step 8 severity lists restate earlier checklist items nearly verbatim, which is trimmable redundancy; not score 3 because the padding is minor and functional, not conceptual over-explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact file paths in Step 1, concrete condition syntax examples ('{ field: 'operation', value: ['x_create_tweet', 'x_delete_tweet'] }'), template-literal URL examples, named utility functions (getCanonicalScopesForProvider, getScopesForService), and the runnable validation command 'bun run lint'. It matches the top anchor for copy-paste-ready, specific instruction-only guidance covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step sequence is clearly ordered (gather files → pull API docs → validate tools/block/OAuth/pagination/errors → report by severity → fix), with explicit validation checkpoints ('bun run lint passes with no fixes needed', 'TypeScript compiles clean', 'Re-read all modified files to verify fixes are correct') and a final checklist. This matches the top anchor with feedback loops and checklists for a complex process.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~284-line monolith with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files and no pointers to separate materials. Internal structure is good (clear section headers, well-organized checklists), but detail that plausibly belongs in reference files (e.g., per-surface block/subBlock checklists, the severity taxonomy) is inlined in SKILL.md. Not score 2 because the content is well-headered and navigable, not a headerless wall; not score 4 because there is no file-level split or reference structure at all.

3 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 is exemplary: third-person voice, concrete actions, an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural synonyms and path-level triggers, and a clearly bounded niche. It mirrors the structure of the reference good examples with no vague or padded language.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Audit an existing Sim integration', 'report and fix issues' — and comprehensively enumerates the covered surfaces: 'tools, blocks, outputs, OAuth scopes, triggers, and registry entries'. It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; there is no missing area of the integration surface.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ('Audit an existing Sim integration against the service API docs and repository conventions, then report and fix issues') and 'when' ('Use when validating or repairing a service integration under...') with concrete trigger phrases and paths. Both halves are explicit and concrete, matching the top anchor; it is not score 4 because the 'when' clause is already maximally specific with path triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Use when validating or repairing a service integration under `apps/sim/tools`, `apps/sim/blocks`, or `apps/sim/triggers`' covers natural synonyms (validating, repairing) plus concrete path-based triggers users would reference. Coverage is comprehensive for this domain; the only slight gap is the absence of terms like 'check' or 'broken integration', which keeps it at the top anchor rather than exceeding it.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unambiguous — auditing Sim service integrations at specific repository paths (`apps/sim/tools`, `apps/sim/blocks`, `apps/sim/triggers`) — so it would not fire for unrelated validation or repair requests. Distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk match the top anchor; it is not score 4 because no closely related skill could plausibly claim these triggers.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

itsablabla/jada-ironman

Path

.agents/skills/validate-integration/SKILL.md

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.