Name: zonka-feedback
Rating: 60.8 (1 reviews)
Author: membranedev

zonka-feedback

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

Quality

71%

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/zonka-feedback/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

76%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 content is highly actionable with concrete, copy-paste commands across the whole integration flow and a strong connection-state feedback loop. Its main weaknesses are a dangling "Step 2" reference and the absence of validation guidance for destructive proxy operations, plus minor conciseness and organization redundancies.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/verification step before destructive proxy calls (e.g. confirm the method and target, and check the response status) so destructive operations have a checkpoint.

Label the post-connection section as "Step 2" (or reword the "skip to Step 2" instruction) so the workflow navigation is unambiguous.

Merge the redundant "Popular actions" and "Searching for actions" sections and trim the opening platform overview to reduce token cost.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Commands and examples are direct and efficient, with only minor over-explanation such as the opening platform overview and the Best practices section restating earlier guidance. It is mostly lean but has a few instances that could be trimmed, matching anchor 4.	4 / 5
Actionability	The body provides copy-paste-ready commands for the full flow (install, login, connection ensure, action list/run, request proxy) plus a concrete flags table and notes on reading the output field. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The connection-readiness flow is well sequenced with a poll/handle/re-poll feedback loop, but the instruction to "skip to Step 2" references a Step 2 that is never labeled, and the proxy path supports destructive verbs (DELETE, PUT) with no validation checkpoint. Per the destructive-operations cap, workflow clarity cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized headers and no nested references, but "Popular actions" partially duplicates "Searching for actions" and there is minor redundancy. It has good structure with minor organization gaps, matching anchor 4.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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 clearly identifies its niche (Zonka Feedback) and includes an explicit use-when clause, but the capability phrasing is generic and the trigger terms lack common synonyms like surveys or responses. It is distinct and complete but could be more concrete.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs ("Manage data, records, automate workflows") with concrete Zonka Feedback actions such as "create and send surveys, collect responses, and generate reports".

Expand trigger terms to include natural phrases users say, e.g. "Use when the user mentions Zonka Feedback, surveys, feedback forms, or survey responses".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Manage data, records, and automate workflows" names the Zonka Feedback domain with a few actions, but the actions are generic and abstract rather than concrete. It is above anchor 2 (single generic action) but lacks the concrete, specific actions of anchor 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both a "what" ("Manage data, records, and automate workflows") and an explicit "when" ("Use when the user wants to interact with Zonka Feedback data") are present. It is not a 5 because the trigger phrasing is generic rather than a comprehensive set of concrete triggers.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The only natural terms are "Zonka Feedback" and "Zonka Feedback data"; it omits common user phrases like surveys, feedback forms, or responses. Coverage is relevant but missing common variations, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Zonka Feedback integration" targets a specific named SaaS product with a distinctive trigger, giving it a clear niche and minimal overlap with other skills, matching anchor 5.	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/zonka-feedback/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.