documenso-incident-runbook
Manage incident response for Documenso integration issues. Use when diagnosing production incidents, handling outages, or responding to Documenso service disruptions. Trigger with phrases like "documenso incident", "documenso outage", "documenso down", "documenso troubleshooting".
80
77%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/saas-packs/documenso-pack/skills/documenso-incident-runbook/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.
The description excels at completeness and distinctiveness, with explicit 'Use when' and 'Trigger with' clauses that clearly define when this skill should be selected. Its main weakness is the lack of specific concrete actions—it says 'manage incident response' but doesn't enumerate what that entails (e.g., checking logs, running diagnostics, escalating). The trigger terms are well-chosen and natural.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions like 'check API connectivity, review error logs, verify webhook configurations, escalate unresolved issues' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (incident response for Documenso integration) and a general action (manage incident response), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check API status', 'review error logs', 'escalate to on-call', or 'rollback deployments'. The actions remain at a high level. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (manage incident response for Documenso integration issues) and 'when' (diagnosing production incidents, handling outages, responding to service disruptions) with explicit trigger phrases listed. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'documenso incident', 'documenso outage', 'documenso down', 'documenso troubleshooting', plus broader terms like 'production incidents', 'outages', and 'service disruptions'. Good coverage of natural phrases. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific combination of 'Documenso' + 'incident response'. The trigger terms are narrowly scoped to a specific service and a specific operational context, making conflicts with other skills very unlikely. | 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 solid incident runbook with strong actionability — executable diagnostic scripts, concrete commands, and a useful circuit breaker implementation. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (communication templates and error summary tables that duplicate scenario content) and missing explicit validation/feedback loops in the incident response workflows. The document would benefit from being split into referenced sub-files for the longer code blocks and templates.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints to each scenario (e.g., after fixing a certificate, provide a concrete verification command rather than just 'create and sign a test document')
Move the circuit breaker code and communication template to separate referenced files to reduce the main document's length and improve progressive disclosure
Remove the error handling summary table at the end since it duplicates information already covered in the individual scenarios above
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is generally well-structured but includes some unnecessary elements like the severity level table (standard incident management knowledge), the communication template (boilerplate Claude can generate), and the error handling summary table that largely duplicates information already covered in the scenarios above. The diagnostic script and circuit breaker code are valuable, but the overall document could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable bash diagnostic scripts, concrete docker commands, a complete TypeScript circuit breaker implementation, and specific curl commands with proper headers. Each scenario has concrete, copy-paste-ready commands and clear action steps. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The scenarios provide clear sequences of steps, and the diagnostic script is well-ordered. However, validation checkpoints are mostly implicit — for example, Scenario 4 says 'Verify: create and sign a test document' but doesn't provide the verification command. The post-incident checklist is good but the incident response procedures lack explicit feedback loops (e.g., 'if circuit breaker doesn't resolve, escalate to...'). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but it's a long monolithic document (~180 lines) that could benefit from splitting scenarios into separate files. The single reference to 'documenso-data-handling' at the end is good but the document itself contains a lot of inline content (circuit breaker code, communication template) that could be referenced externally. | 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.