Name: bugsnag
Rating: 52 (1 reviews)
Author: membranedev

bugsnag

Bugsnag integration. Manage data, records, and automate workflows. Use when the user wants to interact with Bugsnag data.

Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/bugsnag/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 highly actionable with executable Membrane commands and a well-instrumented connection workflow, but it over-explains in places, inlines a large actions table that should be a separate reference file, and—critically—offers no validation or confirmation step before destructive/batch actions, which caps workflow clarity. Splitting the actions table out and adding pre-flight checks for delete/update operations would meaningfully raise the score.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/confirmation checkpoint before destructive or batch actions (delete-error, delete-project, update-error), e.g. require the user to confirm the target ID and summarize the effect before running.

Move the 20-row Popular Actions table into a separate references file (e.g. actions.md) and link to it from the body, keeping only a few representative examples inline.

Trim the opening overview paragraph and auth prose that restate concepts Claude already knows.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly command-driven and efficient, but the opening Bugsnag overview paragraph and prose like 'so you can focus on the integration logic rather than auth plumbing' over-explain what Claude can infer, fitting 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 4 because the padding is noticeable.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready commands with real flags (connection ensure, action list/run, request) and a concrete actions table, matching 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'; not 5 because there is no end-to-end example wiring a search result into a parameterized run.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The connection flow has strong state-based feedback loops (READY/BUILDING/CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED/CONFIGURATION_ERROR with re-polling), but the skill exposes destructive and batch actions (delete-error, delete-project, update-error) with no validation or confirmation checkpoint before running them, so per the destructive-operations cap it cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized, but the 20-row Popular Actions table is inline API reference that belongs in a separate file and there are no external references, matching 'content that should be separate is inline'; not 4 because the bulk reference is not split out.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

57%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 answers both what and when and is anchored to a distinct named product, but its action language is generic ('manage data, records, automate workflows') and it omits the natural trigger terms users would actually say (errors, crashes, events, releases). Tightening the actions and adding concrete Bugsnag-specific triggers would lift specificity and trigger_term_quality.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs with concrete Bugsnag actions, e.g. 'List and triage errors, view events, manage projects and releases.'

Add natural trigger terms users say: 'Use when the user wants to investigate Bugsnag errors, crashes, events, releases, or projects.'

Drop the vague 'Manage data, records, and automate workflows' phrasing, which reads as filler and blurs distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the Bugsnag domain but its actions ('Manage data, records, and automate workflows') are generic and non-concrete, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it does not reach 3 because no action is concrete like 'extracts' or 'lists'.	2 / 5
Completeness	It states both what ('Bugsnag integration. Manage data, records, and automate workflows') and when ('Use when the user wants to interact with Bugsnag data'), matching the 4 anchor where 'when' is present but could be more explicit; not 5 because the trigger phrases lack concrete specificity.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes 'Bugsnag' and 'interact with Bugsnag data' but misses the natural synonyms users would say (errors, crashes, events, releases), fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; not 4 because coverage of natural terms is thin.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Tied to a named product (Bugsnag) with a clear niche and minimal conflict risk, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; not 5 because the generic 'manage data, records, and automate workflows' phrasing could overlap with adjacent Bugsnag-related skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: membranedev/application-skills
Path: skills/bugsnag/SKILL.md
Commit: f484c82

Reviewed: 3 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.