CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

zoom-general

Use when comparing products.

43

Quality

43%

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 ./plugins/zoom/skills/general/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured and token-efficient, with a clear routing workflow and an excellent progressive-disclosure layout of verified reference files. Its main weakness is actionability and workflow checkpoints: guidance is directional rather than executable and validation steps are implicit.

Suggestions

Add a concrete decision rule or mini-table mapping each job outcome to its owning Zoom surface so routing is unambiguous rather than a free-form classification step.

Make the implicit gating explicit, e.g. state what to confirm about auth/scope before proceeding and how to verify a surface choice before routing.

For each reference, add a one-line note on when to open it (e.g. 'open authentication.md when integrating user-level vs account-level OAuth') to improve navigation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean (~25 lines) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the intro, workflow, and reference list each earn their place, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete enumerated guidance (specific Zoom surfaces, job outcomes, auth models), but the steps are directional routing rather than executable commands, and 'Classify the job by outcome' lacks concrete decision criteria beyond listing categories.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with implicit gating ('before implementation', 'once the surface is chosen'), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints, fitting 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than the explicit-validation anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A concise overview points to six well-labeled, one-level-deep reference files, all verified to exist on disk, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; easy navigation' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

15%

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 bare trigger clause with no statement of capability and no Zoom-specific signal, making it both incomplete and indistinct. It scores at the low end across specificity, completeness, and distinctiveness, with only a modest pass on trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a concrete capability statement, e.g. 'Routes cross-product Zoom platform questions to the right surface and provides comparison context.'

Include Zoom-specific trigger terms (Zoom REST API, webhooks, Meeting SDK, Video SDK, Marketplace apps) so it does not conflict with generic comparison skills.

Combine 'what' and 'when' in one sentence: state what the skill does and the situations that should activate it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Use when comparing products.' names no concrete actions or capabilities at all, only a trigger; it matches the 'vague or no actions' anchor rather than naming a domain with some actions.

1 / 3

Completeness

The phrase provides a 'when' trigger but says nothing about what the skill does (no capability statement), so it is missing 'what' — the rubric caps this at the missing-what-or-when level rather than 2.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'comparing products' is a relevant, naturally-utterable trigger term, but it is generic and missing common variations, so it sits at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'comparing products' is very generic and, notably, never mentions Zoom, so it would conflict with any number of product-comparison skills; it fits the 'very generic; would conflict with many skills' anchor.

1 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
openai/plugins
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.