CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

celigo

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

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/celigo/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 genuinely actionable — nearly every section hands the agent a runnable command with expected states — but the workflow is undermined by dangling step references, and the token budget is spent on boilerplate (what Celigo is, empty overview bullets) while detail that belongs in reference files is inlined. Fixing the step numbering and pruning the filler would raise it materially.

Suggestions

Fix the broken step references: label "Step 1" (connection ensure) and "Step 2" (search/run actions) explicitly, or replace "skip to **Step 2**" and "#### 1b." with sequential headings so the flow is coherent.

Delete the padding: the Celigo-is-an-iPaaS intro paragraph, the empty "Celigo Overview" bullet tree, and the sentence "When to use which actions: Use action names and parameters as needed." add no executable guidance.

Move the clientAction enumeration and the proxy flags table into a references/ file (e.g. references/connection-states.md, references/proxy.md) and make "Popular actions" either list real example actions or remove it.

Standardize the CLI invocation (one of `membrane` or `npx @membranehq/cli`) across all commands to avoid mixed copy-paste behavior.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dominated by efficient, copy-pasteable commands, but includes unnecessary padding: an opening paragraph explaining what Celigo/iPaaS is, a near-empty "Celigo Overview" section, the meaningless line "When to use which actions: Use action names and parameters as needed.", and marketing prose like "This will burn less tokens". This is more than the minor trims of anchor 4, matching anchor 3 (mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation).

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable commands cover install, login (including headless completion), connection ensure, polling, action discovery/execution with JSON parameters, and proxy requests with a flags table. It is not anchor 5 because of gaps: "Popular actions" lists no actual actions, one command inconsistently uses `npx @membranehq/cli connection get` instead of the installed `membrane`, and the "Agent Types" note gives no usable instruction.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A real sequence exists (install → login → connection ensure → poll until READY → search actions → run → proxy fallback) and the connection-state handling (CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED → user acts → re-poll; CONFIGURATION_ERROR → check error field) is a genuine feedback loop. It stays at anchor 3 rather than 4 because the steps are broken by dangling references — "skip to **Step 2**" with no Step 2 ever labeled, a "#### 1b." heading with no "1a" — and there is no validation guidance for action results.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so everything lives in a ~140-line SKILL.md with section headers. Content that would naturally be split out — the clientAction schema enumeration, the proxy flags table, and the authentication/agent-type details — is inlined, and organization is marred by the empty overview bullets and a redundant "Popular actions" section. This fits anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) better than 4.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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 has the right structure — domain named, an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and third-person voice — but the capability statement is generic. Naming concrete Celigo operations and richer trigger vocabulary would lift it from adequate to strong.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs with concrete Celigo operations, e.g. "Build and manage integrations and flows, sync records between apps like NetSuite and Salesforce, and run API requests against Celigo".

Broaden trigger terms to include the natural phrases users would say: "Use when the user mentions Celigo, integrations, flows, or syncing records between NetSuite, Salesforce, and other SaaS apps".

State what the skill operates on at a level a reader unfamiliar with Celigo can act on (integrations, flows, connections) instead of the vague "interact with Celigo data".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Celigo integration" names the domain and "Manage data, records, and automate workflows" lists action phrases, but the verbs are generic ("manage", "automate") with no concrete operations like building integrations or running flows. It sits at anchor 3 (domain + non-comprehensive actions) rather than 4, which expects specific concrete actions, and above 2, which expects only minimal or generic actions with no real action list.

3 / 5

Completeness

"Manage data, records, and automate workflows" provides a 'what' and "Use when the user wants to interact with Celigo data" an explicit 'when' clause, so this exceeds the level-3 cap for missing triggers. It falls short of anchor 5 because the 'what' is generic rather than a list of concrete capabilities with concrete trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Celigo", "integration", "data", "records", and "interact with Celigo data" are relevant keywords, but common natural variations users would say (NetSuite, Salesforce, iPaaS, flows, sync) are absent. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations) rather than 4, which requires broader coverage with only a few terms missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Celigo" is a distinctive niche keyword and the trigger explicitly gates on Celigo, giving mostly distinct triggers. It is not anchor 5 because the broad phrases "manage data, records" and "automate workflows" could overlap with generic data/automation skills when Celigo is not mentioned.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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/celigo/SKILL.md

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.