tracking-application-response-times

Track and optimize application response times across API endpoints, database queries, and service calls. Use when monitoring performance or identifying bottlenecks. Trigger with phrases like "track response times", "monitor API performance", or "analyze latency".

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

20%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is generic and non-actionable: it describes a fictional plugin, contains no executable guidance, and fails to connect to the actual bundled scripts. Sections are present but padded with marketing language and abstract steps rather than concrete instructions.

Suggestions

Replace the fictional "response-time-tracker plugin" references with real, executable invocations of the bundled scripts/analyze_response_times.py (with concrete command-line examples and expected output).

Cut marketing prose (Overview, Integration, Resources) and restate the description only briefly, so the body assumes Claude's competence and every token earns its place.

Add explicit validation/feedback checkpoints to the Instructions workflow (e.g., verify metrics were collected, compare percentiles against SLOs, re-run on failure) and link to the real bundle files instead of the non-existent ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/metrics/ path.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is padded with marketing prose ("empowers Claude to proactively monitor and improve application performance") and the Overview/Integration/Resources sections restate generic information Claude already knows, fitting the verbose/padded anchor.	1 / 3
Actionability	There is no executable code or concrete command; steps refer to a non-existent "response-time-tracker plugin" that must be "activated", and the bundled analyze_response_times.py is never referenced, matching the vague/abstract anchor.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Numbered sequences exist (How It Works, Instructions, Error Handling) but steps are abstract ("Configure monitoring", "Collect response time metrics") with no validation checkpoints or concrete commands, fitting the steps-listed-but-checkpoints-missing anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers provide some structure, but the body never links to the bundled scripts/ references and instead points to a non-existent ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/metrics/ path, so content that should reference the bundle is missing or mis-signaled.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, well-structured description that answers both what and when with explicit, natural trigger phrases and a distinct niche. Its only weakness is that "optimize" is a somewhat abstract action verb, leaving the capability list slightly less concrete than the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names concrete scopes ("API endpoints, database queries, and service calls") and two actions ("Track and optimize"), but "optimize" is abstract and only two verbs are listed rather than multiple specific concrete actions, so it sits below the score-3 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what it does ("Track and optimize application response times...") and when to use it ("Use when monitoring performance or identifying bottlenecks" plus explicit trigger phrases), satisfying both what and when.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Explicitly lists natural phrases users would say ("track response times", "monitor API performance", "analyze latency"), giving good coverage of likely user wording.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear response-time/latency monitoring niche with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills despite minor overlap with general performance monitoring.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 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	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills
Commit: 3022dd3

Reviewed: about 7 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.