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".
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills --skill apollo-incident-runbook92
Quality
91%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
2.20xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
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 excellent trigger term coverage and clear 'when to use' guidance. The main weakness is that the capabilities section could be more specific about what concrete actions or procedures the skill provides beyond general categories like 'debugging production issues'.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 specific concrete actions the skill enables, such as 'check Apollo status endpoints', 'review API rate limits', or 'escalate to Apollo support'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Apollo.io incident response) and mentions some actions (handling outages, debugging production issues, responding to integration failures), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check status page', 'restart services', or 'escalate to on-call'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (incident response procedures for Apollo.io) and when (handling outages, debugging production issues, integration failures) with explicit trigger phrases provided in a dedicated section. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Explicitly lists natural trigger phrases users would say: 'apollo incident', 'apollo outage', 'apollo down', 'apollo production issue', 'apollo emergency'. These are realistic terms someone would use during an incident. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with Apollo.io-specific triggers. The combination of 'Apollo' + incident-related terms creates a clear niche that wouldn't conflict with general incident response or other integration skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a high-quality incident runbook with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The severity classification matrix, executable diagnosis commands, and complete code implementations make it immediately useful. The main weakness is that some detailed implementations (circuit breaker, request budget) could be extracted to separate files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file's length.
Suggestions
Extract the CircuitBreaker and RequestBudget TypeScript implementations to a separate IMPLEMENTATIONS.md file, keeping only brief references in the main runbook
Consider splitting P1/P2/P3 procedures into separate files (e.g., P1-PROCEDURES.md) with the main file serving as an index with quick-reference summaries
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is dense and efficient, providing actionable commands and code without explaining basic concepts. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary explanations of what Apollo is or how incident response works generally. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent executable guidance throughout - bash commands are copy-paste ready, TypeScript implementations are complete and functional, and specific curl commands include proper headers and jq parsing. The circuit breaker and request budget implementations are production-ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step procedures are clearly numbered with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Wait, verify healthy' before scaling up, 'When Apollo is back' conditional steps). Recovery procedures include verification steps and gradual restoration patterns with clear feedback loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and tables, but the file is quite long (~300 lines) with detailed implementations inline. The circuit breaker and request budget code could be referenced from separate files. References to external resources are present but minimal internal file references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 | |
Table of Contents
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.