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
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 essentially a placeholder that repeats the skill name without providing any substantive information about what the skill does or when it should be used. It lacks concrete actions, meaningful trigger terms, and explicit activation guidance, making it nearly useless for skill selection among multiple options.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Recommends appropriate HTTP status codes for API endpoints, explains status code meanings, and suggests error handling patterns for REST APIs.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about HTTP status codes, REST response codes, error codes, 4xx/5xx responses, or needs help choosing the right status code for an API endpoint.'
Replace the duplicated trigger term with diverse natural language variations users might say, such as 'HTTP response code', 'what status code', 'API error response', '200 OK', '404 not found', etc.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Status Code Recommender') and its category ('API Development') but does not describe any concrete actions like recommending specific HTTP status codes, explaining their meanings, or mapping endpoints to appropriate codes. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond the name itself, and the 'when' clause is just a redundant repetition of the skill name rather than meaningful trigger guidance. There is no explicit 'Use when...' clause with real scenarios. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just 'status code recommender' repeated twice. It misses natural user phrases like 'HTTP status code', 'what status code should I use', 'REST API response codes', '404', '500', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'status code' is somewhat specific to HTTP/API contexts, which provides some distinctiveness. However, the vague 'API Development' category and lack of concrete scope 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 an empty shell with no substantive content. It consists entirely of boilerplate meta-descriptions about what the skill claims to do without providing any actual guidance on HTTP status codes, when to use them, or how to recommend appropriate ones for API endpoints. It fails on every dimension because it contains zero actionable information.
Suggestions
Add a concrete reference table or decision tree mapping API scenarios to appropriate HTTP status codes (e.g., 200 for success, 201 for created, 404 for not found, 409 for conflict, etc.)
Include specific examples showing an API endpoint description paired with the recommended status codes and reasoning, e.g., 'POST /users -> 201 Created (success), 400 Bad Request (validation), 409 Conflict (duplicate email)'
Add a workflow for status code selection: 1. Identify the HTTP method, 2. Determine success/error scenarios, 3. Map each scenario to the most specific status code, with common pitfalls to avoid
Remove all boilerplate meta-description sections ('Purpose', 'When to Use', 'Capabilities', 'Example Triggers') and replace with actual instructional content about status code selection
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know, repeats 'status code recommender' excessively, and provides zero actual information about HTTP status codes or how to recommend them. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no concrete guidance, no code, no commands, no examples of actual status code recommendations, and no executable content whatsoever. The skill describes what it claims to do rather than actually instructing how to do it. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. The bullet point 'Provides step-by-step guidance' is a claim with no actual steps provided. There are no validation checkpoints or sequences. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of meta-description with no useful structure. There are no references to detailed materials, no quick-start section, and no meaningful organization of content since there is no real content to organize. | 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.