apollo-cost-tuning

Optimize Apollo.io costs and credit usage. Use when managing Apollo credits, reducing API costs, or optimizing subscription usage. Trigger with phrases like "apollo cost", "apollo credits", "apollo billing", "reduce apollo costs", "apollo usage".

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

65%

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

The body delivers highly actionable, executable code across a clear six-step sequence — its strongest trait. It loses points for duplicating content that already lives in an unlinked references file, for lacking validation/rollback feedback in the batch enrichment step, and for a broken 'Next Steps' pointer.

Suggestions

Add a validation/feedback loop to Step 6's batch enrichment: check the bulk_match response for per-item failures and retry or skip failed matches before counting them as enriched.

Link references/implementation-guide.md from the body (e.g. under a References or Advanced section) and move the duplicated full code there, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview pointing to it.

Fix the 'Next Steps' pointer: either remove the 'apollo-reference-architecture' line or link the actual existing file path.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient executable code with minimal concept explanation, but the full credit-table, tracker, dedup, scorer, and pipeline all reappear in references/implementation-guide.md, so a reader pays twice for content that could be split rather than duplicated inline. It does not hit the score-3 'every token earns its place' bar.	2 / 3
Actionability	Six complete, executable TypeScript modules (CreditTracker, dedup, lead-scorer, budget-aware axios client, pipeline) with real endpoint paths and env vars, copy-paste ready and free of pseudocode placeholders.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Six steps are clearly sequenced, but the batch enrichment pipeline (a destructive, credit-consuming operation) has no validation/feedback loop — failed batches are never re-validated or rolled back — which caps it at 2 per the batch-operation guidance.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are organized, but references/implementation-guide.md exists yet is never linked from the body, while 'Next Steps' points to a non-existent 'apollo-reference-architecture' — references are present but not correctly signaled, and substantial reference content is duplicated inline rather than offloaded.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

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 well-targeted: third-person voice, an explicit 'Use when' clause, and natural Apollo-specific trigger phrases keep it distinct and complete. Its only weakness is that the capability verbs ('manage/reduce/optimize') are generic rather than a concrete list of actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain and verbs ('managing Apollo credits, reducing API costs, optimizing subscription usage') but these are generic verbs rather than a list of distinct concrete operations, unlike the score-3 example which enumerates specific actions.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what it does (optimize Apollo.io costs and credit usage) and provides an explicit 'Use when managing Apollo credits...' trigger clause, satisfying both the what and the when.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger phrases a user would actually say are explicit ('apollo cost', 'apollo credits', 'apollo billing', 'reduce apollo costs', 'apollo usage'), giving good coverage of common variations.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It occupies a clear niche (Apollo.io cost/credit optimization) with Apollo-specific triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 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
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills
Commit: 3022dd3

Reviewed: 1 day 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.