tessl i github:jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills --skill validating-api-schemasValidate API schemas against OpenAPI, JSON Schema, and GraphQL specifications. Use when validating API schemas and contracts. Trigger with phrases like "validate API schema", "check OpenAPI spec", or "verify schema".
Validation
81%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
7%This skill claims to validate API schemas but instead describes generic API development tasks. It lacks any concrete schema validation code, specific tools (like ajv, openapi-schema-validator, graphql-js), or actual validation workflows. The content appears to be boilerplate that was not customized for the stated purpose.
Suggestions
Replace generic API development instructions with specific schema validation code examples using tools like ajv for JSON Schema, swagger-parser for OpenAPI, or graphql for GraphQL validation
Add executable code snippets showing how to validate a schema file and interpret validation errors
Remove irrelevant prerequisites and output sections that describe API development rather than schema validation
Include a clear workflow: load schema → validate against spec → report errors → suggest fixes
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate that doesn't relate to schema validation. Prerequisites list obvious items Claude knows, and the instructions describe general API development rather than schema validation specifically. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code examples for validating schemas against OpenAPI, JSON Schema, or GraphQL. Instructions are vague ('Define resource models', 'Add input validation') with no executable commands or specific validation tools/libraries mentioned. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered steps are disjointed and don't form a coherent schema validation workflow. Steps mix API development tasks with validation without clear sequencing, and there are no validation checkpoints for the validation task itself. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to external files (implementation.md, errors.md, examples.md) are present and one-level deep, but the main content is poorly organized with irrelevant sections. The skill body itself contains content that doesn't match its stated purpose. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Activation
90%This is a well-structured skill description with explicit trigger guidance and clear scope. The main weakness is limited specificity in describing capabilities beyond 'validate'. The description effectively uses third person voice and provides natural trigger phrases users would actually say.
Suggestions
Expand the capabilities list with additional concrete actions like 'report validation errors', 'check schema compatibility', or 'identify missing required fields'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (API schemas) and lists specific schema types (OpenAPI, JSON Schema, GraphQL), but only describes one action (validate). Missing other concrete actions like 'report errors', 'suggest fixes', or 'check compatibility'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (validate API schemas against OpenAPI, JSON Schema, and GraphQL specifications) and when (explicit 'Use when' clause plus 'Trigger with phrases' providing concrete examples). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good coverage of natural terms: 'validate API schema', 'check OpenAPI spec', 'verify schema', plus mentions specific formats (OpenAPI, JSON Schema, GraphQL) that users would naturally reference. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on API schema validation with distinct triggers mentioning specific schema formats (OpenAPI, JSON Schema, GraphQL). Unlikely to conflict with general code or document skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.