Name: siteleaf
Rating: 56.00000000000001 (1 reviews)
Author: membranedev

Blog Docs Log in Get started

siteleaf

Siteleaf integration. Manage Sites, Users. Use when the user wants to interact with Siteleaf data.

Quality

63%

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/siteleaf/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 concrete CLI commands and a well-structured connection workflow, though it carries minor redundancy and lacks verification guidance for destructive proxy operations. Splitting or trimming the duplicated action-list material and adding post-request verification would raise the score.

Suggestions

Add a verification step after destructive proxy requests or action runs, e.g. re-fetch the resource or check the response status before reporting success.

Remove the duplicated `membrane action list --intent=QUERY` example by merging 'Searching for actions' and 'Popular actions', or populate 'Popular actions' with named common actions.

Trim the introductory paragraph explaining what Siteleaf is, since Claude can infer this from the product name and docs link.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly command-dense and efficient, but the introductory paragraph explaining what Siteleaf is and the duplicated `membrane action list --intent=QUERY` example (in both 'Searching for actions' and 'Popular actions') are unnecessary padding that could be tightened. It is not a 4 because the redundancy is noticeable, and not a 2 because the bulk is lean rather than extensively padded.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands throughout (install, login, connection ensure, action list/run, request) plus a flag table, matching the score-4 anchor of mostly executable guidance with minor gaps. It is not a 5 because the 'Popular actions' section only reprints the discovery command instead of naming actual popular actions, and output parsing is left implicit.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The connection setup has a strong sequenced flow with state polling and a feedback loop, but the proxy-request workflow supports destructive methods (DELETE/PUT) with no verification step, triggering the destructive-operation cap at 3. It is not a 4 because the verification gap for destructive proxy calls is material, and not a 2 because the connection sequence is well-defined with explicit state handling.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections (install, auth, connect, search, run, proxy, best practices) with content appropriately placed inline and no need for external references, matching the score-4 anchor. It is not a 5 because there are no signaled one-level-deep references, and not a 3 because structure and placement are good rather than merely adequate.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 cleanly answers both what and when and leverages a distinctive product name, but its action list is sparse and trigger coverage relies on a single keyword. Tightening the when clause and listing more concrete actions would lift it toward the top anchors.

Suggestions

Expand the action list beyond 'Manage Sites, Users' to concrete operations like create/list posts, pages, assets, and site variables.

Make the 'Use when' clause more specific with trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when managing Siteleaf posts, pages, assets, or site settings'.

Add natural synonyms or terms users say (e.g. 'Siteleaf CMS', 'Siteleaf content') to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("Siteleaf integration") and 1-2 concrete actions ("Manage Sites, Users"), matching the score-3 anchor of domain plus a couple actions without comprehensive coverage. It is not a 4 because only two generic actions are listed, and not a 2 because actions are present rather than minimal.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states the what ("Manage Sites, Users") and an explicit when ("Use when the user wants to interact with Siteleaf data"), matching the score-4 anchor with both present. It is not a 5 because the when clause is generic rather than concrete trigger phrases, and not a 3 because the when is explicitly stated rather than weakly implied.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Siteleaf" is the natural keyword a user would say, but coverage is thin with no synonyms, common variations, or file extensions. It clears the score-3 bar of some relevant keywords missing variations, but does not reach 4's good keyword coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Siteleaf" is a unique product name giving a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching the score-5 anchor. It is not a 4 because the product name alone makes overlap with other skills very unlikely.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/siteleaf/SKILL.md
Commit: f484c82

Reviewed: 4 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.