guidewire-common-errors
Diagnose and fix common Guidewire Cloud API errors including Gosu exceptions, validation failures, and integration issues. Trigger: "guidewire common errors", "common-errors".
56
47%
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/guidewire-pack/skills/guidewire-common-errors/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
57%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 targets a clear niche (Guidewire Cloud API errors) which gives it strong distinctiveness, but it lacks specificity in the concrete actions it performs and its trigger terms are more like internal identifiers than natural user language. The 'when' guidance is present but weak, using skill-name references rather than describing user scenarios.
Suggestions
Replace the 'Trigger' clause with a 'Use when...' clause describing natural user scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user encounters Guidewire Cloud API errors, Gosu compilation failures, validation rule errors, or integration timeout issues.'
Add more specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Parses Gosu stack traces, resolves entity validation errors, troubleshoots REST API authentication failures, and fixes batch process integration issues.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'Gosu error', 'GW API failure', 'Guidewire validation error', 'ClaimCenter error', 'PolicyCenter exception'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Guidewire Cloud API errors) and some categories of actions (Gosu exceptions, validation failures, integration issues), but 'diagnose and fix' is somewhat generic and doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'parse error logs', 'resolve timeout issues', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (diagnose and fix common errors), and there is a 'Trigger' clause, but it only lists skill-name-like terms ('guidewire common errors', 'common-errors') rather than natural user scenarios or explicit 'Use when...' guidance describing when Claude should select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'Gosu exceptions', 'validation failures', 'integration issues', and 'guidewire common errors', but misses natural user phrases like 'Guidewire error', 'API error', 'Gosu error', 'GW Cloud', or specific error codes users might mention. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Guidewire Cloud API is a very specific niche domain, and the mention of Gosu exceptions and Guidewire-specific terminology makes it highly unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is extremely concise but sacrifices actionability and workflow clarity to the point of being unhelpful. It reads more like a cheat-sheet index than an instructional skill — listing error codes with one-phrase fixes but providing no executable examples, diagnostic steps, or structured troubleshooting workflows. The heavy reliance on an external implementation guide means the skill body itself provides minimal standalone value.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, executable code example for the most common error scenarios (e.g., a curl command showing OAuth token refresh for 401, or a code snippet for handling 409 stale checksum with re-GET and retry).
Provide a structured diagnostic workflow: e.g., 1. Check status code → 2. Read error body → 3. Apply specific fix → 4. Verify fix worked, with explicit validation steps.
For each error category (HTTP errors, Gosu errors), include a specific input/output example showing the error message and the corresponding fix, rather than just a parenthetical hint.
Clarify what the implementation guide reference contains so readers know when to consult it vs. when the overview suffices.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean — every token carries information. No unnecessary explanations of what HTTP status codes are or how APIs work. The compressed format (code: description) is efficient and assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code examples, no executable commands, no specific fix steps. The guidance is entirely descriptive ('re-GET and retry', 'read userMessage') without showing how to actually implement any fix. No request/response examples or code snippets. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No sequenced steps for diagnosing or fixing errors. No validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For a troubleshooting skill involving potentially destructive retry operations, the lack of any structured workflow is a significant gap. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References an implementation guide one level deep, which is good structure. However, the overview itself is so sparse it's unclear what the referenced file contains, and the external resource links are generic rather than targeted to specific error scenarios. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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
3e83543
- 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.