logging-api-requests
Monitor and log API requests with correlation IDs, performance metrics, and security audit trails. Use when auditing API requests and responses. Trigger with phrases like "log API requests", "add API logging", or "track API calls".
75
71%
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/api-development/api-request-logger/skills/logging-api-requests/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
100%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-crafted skill description that clearly specifies concrete capabilities (correlation IDs, performance metrics, security audit trails), provides explicit 'Use when' guidance, and includes natural trigger phrases. It is concise, uses third-person voice, and is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Monitor and log API requests with correlation IDs, performance metrics, and security audit trails.' This names specific technical capabilities rather than vague language. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (monitor and log API requests with correlation IDs, performance metrics, and security audit trails) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when auditing API requests and responses' clause plus trigger phrases). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural trigger phrases users would say: 'log API requests', 'add API logging', 'track API calls', plus terms like 'auditing API requests and responses', 'correlation IDs', 'performance metrics', and 'security audit trails' which cover common variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around API request logging with specific differentiators like correlation IDs, performance metrics, and security audit trails. Unlikely to conflict with general logging or generic API skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
42%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill covers a comprehensive scope of API request logging concerns but suffers from being descriptive rather than executable—it tells Claude what to build without showing how. The references to non-existent bundle files undermine progressive disclosure, and the lack of concrete code examples (despite specifying Node.js output files) significantly reduces actionability. The error handling table and examples section add value but would be stronger with actual code snippets.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples for at least the core middleware (request-logger.js) and PII redactor, showing the actual implementation patterns rather than just describing them.
Either include the referenced bundle files (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) or remove the references and inline the essential content.
Add explicit validation checkpoints between steps, e.g., 'Verify correlation ID appears in log output before proceeding to PII redaction step.'
Trim the overview and prerequisites sections—Claude doesn't need explanations of what ELK Stack stands for or what PII classification means.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary elaboration (e.g., listing specific log aggregation systems, explaining what PII classification means, the lengthy overview paragraph). However, it's not egregiously verbose—most content is relevant, just could be tightened significantly. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Instructions are specific about what to implement but lack executable code examples. The steps describe what to build rather than showing concrete implementation patterns. The output files are well-specified, but the actual middleware code, PII redaction patterns, and configuration examples are deferred to a referenced implementation.md that doesn't exist in the bundle. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (examine existing setup → implement middleware → add correlation IDs → PII redaction → log levels → etc.) and step 9 includes testing as validation. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints between steps, no feedback loops for verifying each component works before proceeding, and destructive operations like log configuration changes lack rollback guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references three external files (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) that don't exist in the bundle, making the references broken. The main file is also quite long with inline content (error handling table, examples) that could benefit from better organization, yet the referenced files that should contain the detailed content are missing entirely. | 1 / 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
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.