lightrun-error-remediation-automation

Guide deterministic runtime investigations in environments using Lightrun MCP tools, with preflight gating, recovery/resume rules, evidence-first diagnosis, PR-first fix proposal delivery, and local source-code fallback only when PR creation is not possible.

1.00x

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

28%

1.00x

Average score across 1 eval scenario

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/lightrun-error-remediation-automation/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

73%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable investigation workflow with strong validation checkpoints and clear reference linking. Its main weakness is redundancy: the same workflow is presented three times (Quick Use Guide, Flow, Quality Checklist), inflating token cost without adding guidance value.

Suggestions

Collapse the Quick Use Guide and the Flow into a single canonical sequence to remove the most significant duplication.

Move the detailed Storage Discovery Protocol and Action Error Mitigation blocks into a reference file, keeping only the decision rule inline in SKILL.md.

Trim the Runtime Quality Checklist to only items not already enforced in the Flow, or convert it into a short pointer to the Flow's success criteria.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and rule-based without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it triplicates the same workflow across the Quick Use Guide, the Flow, and the Runtime Quality Checklist, which is padded and could be tightened by deduplication.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific guidance for an instruction-only skill: exact blocker strings ('state-storage-unavailable', 'reproduction-required', 'runtime-source-ambiguous'), specific field names ('agentPoolName', 'agentNames', 'tagNames'), an investigation template, and a real referenced detail file, with only minor open-endedness in tool selection.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Flow is a numbered sequence with explicit per-step success criteria, hard validation gates (preflight pass/fail, mandatory runtime action result gate, state-storage check before async actions), error-recovery feedback loops (action error mitigation), and a checklist for the complex process.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is good with well-signaled one-level-deep references (links to references/mcp-tool-discovery.md with specific anchors that resolve to real sections), but the body holds dense inline protocol (Storage Discovery Protocol, full Flow) that could be split into reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description is distinctive and names several concrete capabilities, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause and uses technical phrasing that omits natural user keywords like 'debug' or 'error'. Adding a 'Use when...' sentence with natural trigger terms would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when debugging a runtime error or investigating an incident with Lightrun, diagnosing a bug from runtime evidence, or proposing a fix via PR.'

Add common user-facing synonyms ('debug', 'error', 'incident', 'bug') alongside the technical terms to improve trigger-term coverage.

Reframe process-oriented phrases ('recovery/resume rules', 'evidence-first diagnosis') as discrete concrete actions to lift specificity toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete capability areas ('preflight gating', 'evidence-first diagnosis', 'PR-first fix proposal delivery', 'local source-code fallback') tied to the Lightrun domain, though the phrasing is process-oriented rather than discrete operations, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (guide deterministic runtime investigations via Lightrun MCP tools with a enumerated capabilities), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant domain terms ('Lightrun', 'runtime investigations', 'diagnosis', 'fix proposal', 'PR') but leans technical and omits common natural variations a user would say ('debug', 'error', 'incident', 'bug').	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is tightly scoped to Lightrun MCP runtime investigations with PR-first fix delivery, a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: lightrun-platform/lightrun-ai
Path: skills/lightrun-error-remediation-automation/SKILL.md
Commit: d2b954c

Reviewed: 2 days 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.