webhook-retry-handler
Webhook Retry Handler - Auto-activating skill for API Integration. Triggers on: webhook retry handler, webhook retry handler Part of the API Integration skill category.
34
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
87%
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/webhook-retry-handler/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 extremely weak across all dimensions. It reads as an auto-generated stub with no concrete actions, no natural trigger terms beyond the skill name repeated, and no guidance on when Claude should select it. It would be nearly indistinguishable from other API-related skills in a large skill library.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Implements exponential backoff retry logic for failed webhook deliveries, monitors webhook response codes, and queues failed payloads for redelivery.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user mentions webhook failures, retry logic, failed deliveries, webhook timeouts, exponential backoff, or redelivery strategies.'
Remove the duplicated trigger term ('webhook retry handler' listed twice) and replace with diverse keyword variations users would naturally use, such as 'webhook error handling', 'failed webhook', 'retry policy', 'delivery failure'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('webhook retry handler') but provides no concrete actions. There is no indication of what the skill actually does—no verbs describing specific capabilities like 'retries failed webhooks', 'configures retry policies', or 'logs delivery attempts'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. There is no explanation of capabilities and no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just 'webhook retry handler' repeated twice. There are no natural keyword variations a user might say, such as 'webhook failure', 'retry logic', 'failed delivery', 'webhook timeout', or 'redelivery'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'webhook retry handler' is somewhat specific to a niche domain, which reduces conflict risk compared to fully generic descriptions. However, the lack of concrete actions and the broad 'API Integration' category label could still 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 essentially a placeholder template with no actual technical content. It repeatedly references 'webhook retry handler' without ever explaining what one is, how to implement one, or providing any code, configuration, or concrete guidance. It fails on every dimension because it contains no actionable information whatsoever.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples showing webhook retry logic with exponential backoff (e.g., a Python/Node.js handler with retry queue, delay calculation, and max-retry limits).
Define a clear multi-step workflow: receive webhook → validate signature → process → on failure: enqueue retry with backoff → log after max retries exhausted, with explicit validation checkpoints.
Remove all meta-description sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') that describe the skill abstractly and replace them with actual technical content—retry strategies, idempotency keys, dead letter queues, HTTP status code handling.
Add references to related detailed files (e.g., EXAMPLES.md for language-specific implementations, PATTERNS.md for common retry patterns like exponential backoff with jitter) to support progressive disclosure.
| 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 idea—'webhook retry handler'—without adding substance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code, no commands, no specific retry strategies, no example payloads, no configuration snippets. The skill describes rather than instructs, offering only vague promises like 'provides step-by-step guidance' without actually providing any. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined at all. There are no steps, no sequencing, no validation checkpoints. For a topic like webhook retry handling—which inherently involves multi-step processes (receive, verify, retry with backoff, log failures)—the complete absence of any workflow is a critical gap. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, monolithic block of generic text with no meaningful structure. There are no references to detailed files, no layered content, and the section headers exist but contain no substantive information 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.