request-body-validator
Request Body Validator - Auto-activating skill for API Development. Triggers on: request body validator, request body validator Part of the API Development skill category.
36
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.00xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/15-api-development/request-body-validator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is essentially a boilerplate template with no substantive content. It repeats the skill name as its own trigger term, provides no concrete actions or capabilities, and lacks any 'Use when...' guidance. It would be nearly useless for Claude to differentiate this skill from others in a large skill library.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Validates API request bodies against schemas, checks required fields, enforces data types, and generates validation middleware.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to validate request payloads, enforce input schemas, check API body parameters, or add request validation to endpoints.'
Remove the duplicated trigger term and replace with diverse natural keywords users would say, such as 'validate payload', 'request schema', 'input validation', 'body parsing', 'API validation', 'schema check'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Request Body Validator') and its category ('API Development') but does not describe any concrete actions like validating schemas, checking required fields, generating validation middleware, etc. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. There is no explanation of capabilities and no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms listed are just the skill name repeated twice ('request body validator, request body validator'). It lacks natural user keywords like 'validate payload', 'schema validation', 'input validation', 'request schema', 'body parsing', or 'API validation'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'Request Body Validator' is somewhat specific to a niche (API request validation), which provides some distinctiveness, but the lack of concrete actions or trigger terms means it could overlap with general API development or schema validation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an empty template with no actual content about request body validation. It contains only generic boilerplate text that could apply to any skill topic, with no executable code, no specific validation patterns (e.g., JSON Schema, Zod, Joi, class-validator), no examples, and no actionable guidance whatsoever. It provides zero value beyond what Claude already knows.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing request body validation using specific libraries (e.g., Zod for TypeScript, Pydantic for Python, Joi for Node.js) with input/output examples.
Define a clear workflow: 1) Define schema, 2) Apply validation middleware, 3) Handle validation errors with proper HTTP status codes and error response formats.
Include specific patterns such as OpenAPI schema validation, common validation rules (required fields, type coercion, nested objects, arrays), and error response formatting standards.
Remove all generic boilerplate sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') and replace with actionable content like validation middleware setup, schema definition examples, and error handling patterns.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know and provides zero domain-specific information about request body validation. Every section restates the same vague concept without adding value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no concrete code, no specific commands, no examples of validation schemas, libraries, or patterns. The content describes rather than instructs, with phrases like 'Provides step-by-step guidance' without actually providing any. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains zero actual steps for implementing request body validation. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, monolithic block of generic text with no meaningful structure, no references to detailed materials, and no navigation to deeper content. The sections exist but contain no substantive information. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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
4dee593
- 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.