status-code-recommender
Status Code Recommender - Auto-activating skill for API Development. Triggers on: status code recommender, status code recommender Part of the API Development skill category.
34
Quality
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
88%
0.92xAverage 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/status-code-recommender/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 severely underdeveloped, essentially just restating the skill name without explaining capabilities or providing useful trigger guidance. It fails to describe what actions the skill performs (e.g., recommending appropriate HTTP status codes for API endpoints) and lacks natural user keywords. The duplicate trigger term suggests this may be auto-generated boilerplate.
Suggestions
Add specific actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Recommends appropriate HTTP status codes for REST API endpoints based on operation type and outcome scenarios.'
Include a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms: 'Use when the user asks about HTTP status codes, response codes, error handling in APIs, or which 4xx/5xx code to return.'
Add common user phrases and variations: 'HTTP status', 'response code', '404', '500', 'error response', 'success code', 'REST API status'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Status Code Recommender') without describing any concrete actions. It doesn't explain what the skill actually does - no verbs like 'recommends', 'suggests', 'analyzes', or specific capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what' nor 'when' is adequately answered. The description doesn't explain what the skill does beyond its name, and there's no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just the skill name repeated twice ('status code recommender, status code recommender'). Missing natural user phrases like 'HTTP status', 'response code', '404', '500 error', 'which status code', 'REST API response'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'status code' is somewhat specific to HTTP/API contexts, which provides some distinctiveness. However, the generic 'API Development' category and lack of specific triggers could cause overlap with other API-related 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 entirely meta-content describing what a skill would do rather than providing any actual guidance on recommending HTTP status codes. It contains no status code mappings, no decision logic, no examples of when to use 200 vs 201 vs 204, and no concrete instructions whatsoever. The content is essentially a placeholder template.
Suggestions
Add a concrete status code reference table mapping common API operations (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) to appropriate success and error codes with brief explanations
Include specific decision logic: e.g., 'Return 201 for resource creation, 200 for updates, 204 for deletions with no response body'
Provide 2-3 concrete examples showing input scenarios and recommended status codes with reasoning
Remove all meta-description content ('This skill provides...', 'Capabilities include...') and replace with actual instructional content
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate that explains nothing specific. Phrases like 'provides automated assistance' and 'follows industry best practices' are filler that Claude already knows and add no value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance - no status codes listed, no code examples, no specific recommendations. The skill describes what it does abstractly but never actually instructs Claude on how to recommend status codes. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. For a status code recommender, there should be clear steps like: identify operation type → determine success/failure scenarios → map to appropriate codes. None of this exists. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of meta-description with no actual instructional content to organize. There are no references to detailed materials, examples, or structured sections with real 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
0c08951
- 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.