retry-logic-helper
Retry Logic Helper - Auto-activating skill for API Integration. Triggers on: retry logic helper, retry logic helper Part of the API Integration skill category.
34
0%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/16-api-integration/retry-logic-helper/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 placeholder with no substantive content. It repeats the skill name as its own trigger term, provides no concrete actions or capabilities, and lacks any explicit guidance on when Claude should select it. It would be nearly indistinguishable from other API-related skills in a multi-skill environment.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Implements retry logic with exponential backoff, circuit breakers, and configurable timeout policies for API calls.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about retrying failed API requests, handling transient errors, implementing backoff strategies, or adding resilience to HTTP calls.'
Include natural keyword variations users would actually say, such as 'retry', 'backoff', 'timeout', 'rate limit', 'transient error', 'API failure', 'resilience pattern'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('retry logic' and 'API Integration') but describes no concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed like 'implement exponential backoff', 'add retry decorators', or 'configure timeout policies'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is essentially absent—it only says 'Retry Logic Helper' without explaining what it actually does. The 'when' is limited to a redundant trigger phrase with no explicit 'Use when...' clause describing scenarios. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms are 'retry logic helper' repeated twice, which is not a natural phrase users would say. Missing natural terms like 'retry', 'backoff', 'timeout', 'API error handling', 'rate limiting', 'resilience', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The phrase 'API Integration' is extremely broad and could conflict with many other API-related skills. Without specific actions or clear scope boundaries, this would easily overlap with general API, error handling, or HTTP client skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 a hollow template with no actual technical content. It repeatedly references 'retry logic helper' without ever explaining what retry logic is, how to implement it, or providing any code, patterns, or concrete guidance. It fails on every dimension because it contains no actionable information whatsoever.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing common retry patterns (e.g., exponential backoff with jitter in Python/JavaScript using popular libraries like tenacity or axios-retry).
Define a clear workflow: 1) Identify retriable errors (e.g., 429, 503), 2) Choose a strategy (fixed, exponential, with jitter), 3) Implement with specific code, 4) Validate by testing with simulated failures.
Remove all meta-description sections (When to Use, Example Triggers, Capabilities) and replace with actual technical content—retry strategies, configuration parameters, circuit breaker patterns, and idempotency considerations.
Add a quick-reference table of HTTP status codes that warrant retries vs. those that don't, and include concrete max-retry and timeout recommendations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and meta-description. It explains what the skill does in abstract terms without providing any actual technical content. Every section restates the same vague information about 'retry logic helper' without adding substance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code examples, no specific retry strategies (exponential backoff, jitter, circuit breakers), no library recommendations, no configuration snippets. The content describes rather than instructs. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined at all. There are no steps, no sequencing, and no validation checkpoints. The 'step-by-step guidance' mentioned in Capabilities is never actually provided. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, repetitive document with no meaningful structure. Sections like 'When to Use', 'Capabilities', and 'Example Triggers' all restate the same information. There are no references to detailed materials or external files. | 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.