CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

checkr

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

Quality

69%

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/checkr/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 Membrane integration mechanics are genuinely well documented — executable commands, real state-handling feedback loops, and a sensible workflow order. Weaknesses are the near-total absence of Checkr-specific content (no actions, endpoints, or worked examples for the actual domain), duplicated/garbled sections, and dangling step references ('Step 2', '1b') that break workflow coherence.

Suggestions

Populate 'Popular actions' with real Checkr examples (e.g. create candidate, list packages, send invitation) including a worked `action run` invocation with sample `--input` JSON, instead of restating the generic discovery command.

Fix the broken workflow cross-references: either number the steps (1, 1b, 2, ...) consistently so 'skip to Step 2' resolves, or restructure as a simple linear checklist under 'Connecting to Checkr'.

Trim padded prose (URL-normalization explanation, 'fastest way to get a connection', the garbled 'Agent Types' sentence) and remove the duplicate action-list section; replace the malformed 'Checkr Overview' bullet list with a one-line-per-entity summary of Report, Candidate, Invitation, and Package.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly command documentation without concept over-explaining, but contains several instances of padding: the URL-normalization explanation ('The URL is normalized to a domain and matched against known apps. If no app is found, one is created and a connector is built automatically'), a duplicated action-discovery section ('Searching for actions' and 'Popular actions' both show `action list --intent`), and a garbled filler sentence ('Those will be used to adjust tooling to be used best with your harness'). It sits between anchors 2 and 3, closer to 3, since the majority of lines are lean executable commands.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands throughout — `npm install -g @membranehq/cli@latest`, `membrane connection ensure "https://checkr.com" --json`, `membrane action run <actionId> --connectionId=... --input '{...}'` plus a complete proxy flag table. The gap keeping it from 5: no worked Checkr-specific example at all — the 'Popular actions' section contains no actual actions (no create-candidate, run-background-check, or invitation examples), so common cases are not covered.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear install → login → connect → discover → run sequence with genuine validation loops (poll `BUILDING` until ready, handle `clientAction` states, check `error` field on failure). It falls short of 5 because the step references are incoherent: 'skip to **Step 2**' points to a step that doesn't exist, and '#### 1b. Wait for the connection' appears with no 1a — minor validation gaps and broken cross-references, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so all content lives in a single ~140-line SKILL.md with clear section headers and an official-docs pointer. Structure is good and most content is appropriately placed; the inlined generic Membrane CLI lifecycle material (connection states, proxy flags) and the empty 'Popular actions' and malformed 'Checkr Overview' entity lists are minor organization gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than 3 (structure is clearly good) or 5 (over 50 lines with content that could be split out).

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 is serviceable — it names Checkr, uses third person, and includes an explicit 'Use when...' trigger — but it squanders the domain's most recognizable vocabulary. It never says 'background check' or 'screening', and the capability verbs ('manage data, records, automate workflows') are generic filler that could describe almost any integration.

Suggestions

State the domain's actual purpose: e.g. 'Run background checks and screening reports via the Checkr API: create candidates, send invitations, and manage packages and reports.'

Add natural trigger terms users would say — 'background check', 'screening', 'pre-employment check', 'vetting a candidate' — to the 'Use when...' clause.

Drop the generic 'automate workflows' filler, which invites overlap with unrelated automation skills without adding capability information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Manage data, records, and automate workflows' names the domain ('Checkr integration') but the actions are generic to the point of near-meaninglessness — no background checks, candidates, invitations, or packages are mentioned. This matches anchor 2 ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') and is below anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: what ('Checkr integration. Manage data, records, and automate workflows') and an explicit when ('Use when the user wants to interact with Checkr data'). Structurally this matches anchor 4 ('Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific') rather than 3, since the 'when' is explicitly stated, not merely implied — though both halves are generic, and the 'what' is weaker than anchor 4's example.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Checkr' and 'records' are relevant keywords, but the description misses the natural phrases users would actually say — 'background check', 'background screening', 'candidate', 'vetting' — none of which appear. Fits anchor 3 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'); not 4 because the single most important synonym family ('background check') is absent.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Checkr' proper noun carves out a clear niche and the trigger requires Checkr, so wrong-skill triggering is unlikely. Minor overlap risk remains from the generic 'automate workflows' and 'manage data' phrasing, which could collide with workflow-automation or data-management skills — matching anchor 4 ('Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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/checkr/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.