CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

evernote-debug-bundle

Debug Evernote API issues with diagnostic tools and techniques. Use when troubleshooting API calls, inspecting requests/responses, or diagnosing integration problems. Trigger with phrases like "debug evernote", "evernote diagnostic", "troubleshoot evernote", "evernote logs", "inspect evernote".

66

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A concise, well-structured overview that uses progressive disclosure effectively with a real one-level reference. Its weaknesses are a non-executable code example in Step 2 and the absence of explicit validation/feedback checkpoints in the ENML and instrumentation workflows.

Suggestions

Fix the Step 2 instrumented client example: replace the broken 'const result = await targetprop;' with 'const result = await target[prop](...args);' so the code is copy-paste executable.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint and retry loop to the ENML workflow (e.g. validate → if errors, auto-fix → re-validate → only proceed when valid) to raise workflow clarity for document manipulation.

Inline a minimal concrete snippet for Step 4 (Token Inspector) or Step 5 (Diagnostic CLI) rather than leaving them as prose pointers, so more steps are directly actionable from the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — sections like 'Step 1: Debug Logger' and the error-handling table give dense, purposeful content with no concept-explaining fluff, matching the score-3 anchor of every token earning its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Step 1 provides executable logger code, but Step 2's example contains a broken non-executable line ('const result = await targetprop;') and Steps 3–5 are prose pointers rather than concrete code, fitting the score-2 anchor of some concrete guidance but incomplete with missing key details. It is not score 1 (there is real copy-paste code) and not score 3 (one example is broken and several steps are abstract).

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five steps are clearly sequenced, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or validate→fix→retry feedback loops for the ENML manipulation and instrumented-client operations; per the rubric's scoring notes, missing feedback loops for XML/document manipulation caps workflow clarity at 2. The error-handling table adds diagnostics but does not provide the validate/retry loop the score-3 anchor requires.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md body is an overview that offloads full implementations to a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference ('see [Implementation Guide](references/implementation-guide.md)'), and that file exists as a single-level reference (verified: references/implementation-guide.md, ~623 lines, no nested indirection), matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

90%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A focused, well-triggered description that clearly answers both what and when with natural trigger phrases. Its only weakness is that the headline capability ('diagnostic tools and techniques') is slightly generic relative to the concrete actions a score-3 anchor would enumerate.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes like 'diagnostic tools and techniques' and 'troubleshooting API calls, inspecting requests/responses, or diagnosing integration problems' name the domain and several actions, but 'tools and techniques' stays generic and does not enumerate concrete capabilities as distinctly as the score-3 anchor ('Extract text and tables from PDF files, fill forms, merge documents'). It clears score 2 (names domain and some actions) but the headline action is too abstract for score 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states both what ('Debug Evernote API issues with diagnostic tools and techniques') and when via an explicit 'Use when ...' clause plus trigger phrases, satisfying the score-3 anchor for clearly answering both what AND when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit trigger phrases — 'debug evernote', 'evernote diagnostic', 'troubleshoot evernote', 'evernote logs', 'inspect evernote' — give good coverage of the natural terms a user would actually say, matching the score-3 anchor for natural-term coverage.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Evernote-brand-specific niche ('debug evernote', 'evernote logs') and API-troubleshooting scope make it a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.