gog-forms

Google Forms operations through gog.

Quality

68%

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 ./.agents/skills/gog-forms/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

87%

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 tight, highly actionable command reference that respects Claude's competence and points appropriately to the shared gog skill for cross-cutting rules. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/feedback loop for destructive operations, which are otherwise guarded only by safety flags.

Suggestions

Add a short write/delete workflow with an explicit validate→fix→retry loop, e.g., run with --dry-run, inspect the --json result, fix if it errors, then execute the real mutation.

Show one fully-formed example command for a representative write (e.g., add-question with --account and --json) so users see the complete flag pattern end-to-end.

Briefly state how to verify a mutation succeeded (e.g., re-run `gog forms get --json`) to close the feedback loop the rubric expects for destructive operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient: it uses a compact command table, terse safety bullets, and concrete one-liner commands without explaining concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands (e.g., "gog auth list --check --json --no-input", "gog --readonly --account user@example.com forms --help") plus a specific command table, matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A Safe start sequence and safety flags (--dry-run, --readonly, confirm account/object/mutation) are present, but destructive commands like delete-question and publish lack an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, so per the rubric guideline workflow clarity is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Safe start, Commands) and a single clearly-signaled one-level reference ("Read `../gog/SKILL.md` first"), with no nested/deep references, matching the level-3 anchor for compact well-structured skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 correctly identifies the Google Forms domain and the gog tool but is too thin to be compelling: it lists no concrete actions, includes no "Use when…" trigger guidance, and leans on the generic word "operations." It is clear enough to avoid major conflicts but undersells the skill's capabilities.

Suggestions

Add concrete action verbs to the description, e.g., "Create forms, add and reorder questions, collect responses, and publish forms through gog."

Append an explicit trigger clause such as "Use when the user asks to create or edit Google Forms, manage form questions, or review form responses."

Replace the generic word "operations" with the specific capabilities from the command table to improve specificity and trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "Google Forms operations through gog" names a concrete domain and tool, but the word "operations" is abstract and no specific action verbs (e.g., create, add questions, publish) are listed, so it falls short of the level-3 multiple-concrete-actions anchor and above the vague "Helps with documents" level-1 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states a (weak) "what" but contains no "Use when…" trigger clause, so per the rubric guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"Google Forms" is a natural term a user would say, but "gog" is internal tool jargon and "operations" is generic, so coverage of natural trigger terms is partial rather than comprehensive.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Google Forms niche is distinct, but the thin description and generic "operations" phrasing leave it only somewhat specific, matching the level-2 "could still overlap" anchor rather than a clearly distinctive set of triggers.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: openclaw/gogcli
Path: .agents/skills/gog-forms/SKILL.md
Commit: 1dbd820

Reviewed: about 23 hours 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.