cursor-common-errors
Troubleshoot common Cursor IDE errors: authentication, completion, indexing, API, and performance issues. Triggers on "cursor error", "cursor not working", "cursor issue", "cursor problem", "fix cursor", "cursor crash".
80
77%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/saas-packs/cursor-pack/skills/cursor-common-errors/SKILL.mdQuality
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 solid skill description with excellent trigger terms and clear distinctiveness. Its main weakness is that the capabilities are described at a category level (authentication, completion, indexing) rather than listing specific concrete troubleshooting actions. The explicit trigger terms compensate well for the slightly abstract capability description.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions beyond 'troubleshoot', e.g., 'reset authentication tokens, rebuild code index, diagnose API connection failures, resolve high CPU usage'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Cursor IDE) and lists categories of issues (authentication, completion, indexing, API, performance), but doesn't describe concrete actions like 'reset authentication tokens' or 'clear index cache'. The actions are implied by 'troubleshoot' but not enumerated. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (troubleshoot common Cursor IDE errors across authentication, completion, indexing, API, and performance) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases listed). The 'Triggers on' clause serves as an explicit 'Use when' equivalent. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes excellent natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'cursor error', 'cursor not working', 'cursor issue', 'cursor problem', 'fix cursor', 'cursor crash'. These cover common variations of how users express frustration with the tool. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very distinct niche — Cursor IDE troubleshooting is specific enough that it's unlikely to conflict with other skills. The trigger terms all include 'cursor' which narrows the scope clearly. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured troubleshooting guide with strong actionability — specific commands, paths, and concrete fixes throughout. Its main weaknesses are the lack of verification/feedback steps after fixes (important for troubleshooting workflows) and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed sections into referenced files. Conciseness is decent but could be tightened by removing explanatory context Claude doesn't need.
Suggestions
Add verification steps after each fix sequence (e.g., 'Verify: AI completions should now appear within 5 seconds of typing' or 'If still failing, proceed to next fix')
Split detailed sections (extension conflicts table, enterprise considerations, network allowlist) into separate referenced files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file's token footprint
Remove explanatory context Claude already knows (e.g., 'Cursor uses Open VSX Registry, not Microsoft's marketplace' — just say 'Extension not on Open VSX?' and give the fix)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient with table formats and structured fixes, but includes some unnecessary context Claude would know (e.g., explaining what Open VSX Registry is, the enterprise considerations section is somewhat padded, and some symptom descriptions are obvious). Could be tightened in places but not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable throughout — provides specific commands (Cmd+Shift+P > exact command names), exact file paths for cache deletion across OSes, specific domains to allowlist, concrete settings.json entries, and CLI flags. Nearly every fix is copy-paste ready or immediately executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step fixes are clearly numbered and sequenced, and the performance diagnosis section has a good step-by-step flow. However, there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints — none of the fix sequences include 'verify the fix worked' steps or feedback loops for retry if the fix doesn't resolve the issue. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and logical categorization by error type, making navigation easy. However, this is a long monolithic document (~180 lines) with no references to supporting files. Some sections (like enterprise considerations or detailed extension conflict tables) could be split into separate files for better progressive disclosure. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.