apollo-incident-runbook
Apollo.io incident response procedures. Use when handling Apollo outages, debugging production issues, or responding to integration failures. Trigger with phrases like "apollo incident", "apollo outage", "apollo down", "apollo production issue", "apollo emergency".
85
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-structured skill description with strong trigger terms and clear 'when' guidance. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions or procedures it covers (e.g., runbooks, escalation paths, diagnostic steps). Overall it performs well for skill selection purposes.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'Guides through runbook execution, escalation procedures, service health checks, and post-mortem documentation.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Apollo.io incident response) and some actions (handling outages, debugging production issues, responding to integration failures), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check status page', 'restart services', 'rollback deployments', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (Apollo.io incident response procedures — handling outages, debugging production issues, responding to integration failures) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause and 'Trigger with phrases like' section with specific examples). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Provides excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'apollo incident', 'apollo outage', 'apollo down', 'apollo production issue', 'apollo emergency'. These are realistic phrases someone would use in an urgent situation. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — scoped specifically to Apollo.io incidents and production issues. The combination of 'Apollo' + incident/outage/emergency terminology creates a clear niche unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong incident response runbook with highly actionable, executable code and a clear multi-step workflow. The severity classification matrix, diagnostic script, and circuit breaker are all production-ready. The main weaknesses are the monolithic structure (the circuit breaker and diagnostic script could be separate bundle files) and some minor redundancy in the Output section that restates the content.
Suggestions
Extract the circuit breaker TypeScript and diagnostic bash script into separate bundle files (e.g., scripts/apollo-diagnosis.sh, src/resilience/circuit-breaker.ts) and reference them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.
Remove the 'Output' section which merely summarizes what was already provided in the steps above, saving tokens without losing clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient with well-structured tables and code, but includes some unnecessary sections like the 'Output' summary which just restates what was already provided, and the Prerequisites section states obvious things. The P2/P3 handler functions are stub comments rather than real code, adding bulk without value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable bash diagnostic scripts with real curl commands and endpoints, a complete TypeScript circuit breaker implementation, concrete severity classification with specific thresholds, and a detailed post-incident review template. The code is copy-paste ready and uses real Apollo API endpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced from classification through diagnosis, mitigation (circuit breaker), degradation handling, and post-incident review. The escalation table provides explicit validation checkpoints (P1 > 15 min → page on-call), and the circuit breaker itself implements a feedback loop (closed → open → half-open → closed). The diagnosis script validates each component systematically. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but it's a monolithic file with no bundle files to offload detailed content. The circuit breaker implementation (~40 lines of TypeScript) and the full diagnostic script could reasonably be split into referenced files. The 'Next Steps' reference to apollo-data-handling is good but there are no other cross-references to supporting files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 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 | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3a2d27d
- 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.