CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cost-analysis

Analyze actual Azure spend, bill changes, and AKS or AI costs. WHEN: "Azure cost breakdown", "most expensive resources", "why did my bill increase", "cost spike", "unexpected charge", "Cosmos DB charges", "Foundry model costs", "AKS cluster cost", "namespace cost", "enable AKS cost analysis", "idle AKS capacity". DO NOT USE FOR: forecasts, pricing estimates, rightsizing, commitments, or budgets.

Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is cost-analysis in microsoft/GitHub-Copilot-for-Azure

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 an efficient, well-structured router: lean overview, clear intent-to-workflow mapping, sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, and an explicit error-recovery table. The two minor gaps are that executable query specifics live entirely in references and the cost-query subtree nests one level deeper than ideal.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~35-line body is lean tables and imperatives with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., "Never transform MCP results in a shell or interpreter; request tool-side totals"), matching anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete tool names (query_costs, query_aks_costs, Resource Graph), an intent-to-workflow decision table, and specific directives ("Retry once; then stop with the trace ID") give mostly executable guidance; it stops short of anchor 5 because executable specifics like query parameters are deferred to reference files rather than shown, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step sequence has an upfront checkpoint ("Confirm scope, period, currency, and breakdown"), output validation ("Respect row limits and label incomplete data"), and an error-handling table with explicit recovery loops (retry once, then stop with the trace ID), matching anchor 5's explicit validation with feedback loops; this is a read-only skill so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The Quick Reference table well-signals one-level references that all resolve to real bundle files, but references/cost-query/workflow.md chains onward to five sibling files (two levels deep from SKILL.md), a minor deviation from anchor 5's one-level-deep pattern that fits anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps'.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

91%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 a strong example: it states concrete capabilities in third person, supplies an extensive list of natural trigger phrases including Azure-service-specific ones, and adds an explicit exclusion boundary. Its only weakness is a few cloud-agnostic trigger terms that create minor overlap risk with adjacent cost skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Analyze actual Azure spend, bill changes, and AKS or AI costs" plus the "enable AKS cost analysis" trigger name several concrete actions with specific objects, matching anchor 4's 'several specific actions; minor gaps'. It falls short of anchor 5 because a single verb ("Analyze") covers all actions, unlike a comprehensive multi-verb list, and exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicit what ("Analyze actual Azure spend, bill changes, and AKS or AI costs"), explicit WHEN with concrete trigger phrases, and a DO NOT USE FOR exclusion list together match anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4's weaker 'when could be more explicit' clearly understates the trigger list.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Eleven natural quoted phrases ("why did my bill increase", "cost spike", "unexpected charge", "Cosmos DB charges", "Foundry model costs", "idle AKS capacity") cover synonyms and service-specific variations users would actually say, matching anchor 5's comprehensive natural-term coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Azure", "AKS", "Cosmos DB", and "Foundry" terms plus "DO NOT USE FOR: forecasts, pricing estimates, rightsizing, commitments, or budgets" carve a clear niche, but generic triggers like "most expensive resources" and "cost spike" leave minor overlap risk with other cloud-cost skills, fitting anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

microsoft/azure-skills

Path

.github/plugins/azure-cost/skills/cost-analysis/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.