Name: gooddata
Rating: 56.8 (1 reviews)
Author: membranedev

gooddata

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

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

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 body is a well-structured, actionable guide with concrete CLI commands and a clear connection-state workflow including feedback loops. Its main weaknesses are some over-explanatory padding, a duplicated action-list command, and a broken "Step 2" cross-reference.

Suggestions

Trim the introductory paragraph explaining what GoodData is and de-duplicate the `action list` command between "Searching for actions" and "Popular actions".

Fix the broken cross-reference ("skip to Step 2" / "1b" with no Step 1a or Step 2 heading) by labeling the workflow steps consistently.

Add a brief result/error-validation note for `action run` and `request` (e.g., check the `output` field and HTTP status) to close the feedback loop for execution steps.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening paragraph explaining what GoodData is ("cloud-based analytics platform... track KPIs, identify trends... embedded analytics") is context Claude largely already knows, and the "Popular actions" section repeats the `action list` command already shown in "Searching for actions", so it is mostly efficient with some unnecessary padding.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready commands for install, login, connection ensure, action list/run, and a proxy flags table, but commands rely on placeholders (CONNECTION_ID, <actionId>, QUERY) and defer real GoodData action specifics to runtime discovery, leaving minor gaps versus fully-specified examples.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The install → login → connection ensure → poll state → handle clientAction → search → run sequence is clear with explicit state-based checkpoints and a poll/feedback loop for connection readiness, though action-execution and proxy steps lack result validation and the "skip to Step 2" reference points to no labeled Step 2.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-organized into clear sections (Overview, Install, Auth, Connecting, Searching, Running, Proxy, Best practices) with no bundle files present, but at ~160 lines all content is inlined with no external references and minor redundancy between sections, fitting "good structure; minor organization gaps" rather than a clean one-level-deep reference split.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 covers both capability and an explicit use-trigger tied to a specific named platform, which gives it solid distinctiveness and completeness. Its weakness is generic action verbs and thin natural-keyword coverage beyond the product name.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs ("Manage data, records") with concrete GoodData-specific actions (e.g., "query metrics, build dashboards, manage workspaces and datasets").

Expand trigger keywords to include natural user phrases like "GoodData dashboards", "GoodData metrics", or "GoodData workspace".

Tighten the "Use when" clause to name concrete intents (e.g., "Use when the user wants to query GoodData metrics or manage GoodData dashboards and workspaces").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Manage data, records, and automate workflows" names the GoodData domain plus 2-3 actions, but the actions are generic ("manage data") rather than concrete like the score-4 anchor's "extracts text, fills forms, converts pages".	3 / 5
Completeness	It states both what ("Manage data, records, and automate workflows") and an explicit when ("Use when the user wants to interact with GoodData data"), but the when-trigger is somewhat generic, fitting the "has both what and when; when could be more explicit" anchor rather than score 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The natural keywords are limited to "GoodData" and "data"; it lacks common synonyms or variations a user might say, matching the "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	GoodData is a named platform giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the surrounding trigger words ("data", "records", "workflows") are broad enough to risk minor overlap, placing it just below the score-5 "clear niche with distinct triggers".	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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/gooddata/SKILL.md
Commit: f484c82

Reviewed: 5 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.