CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

create-agent-adapter

Create or modify Paperclip agent adapters across server, UI, and CLI surfaces. Use when adding support for a new CLI agent, API agent, custom process, or adapter package.

66

Quality

80%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/create-agent-adapter/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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.

A strong, information-dense body with an exemplary multi-step workflow: concrete scaffold code, explicit validation checkpoints, error-recovery loops, and a closing checklist. Its main weaknesses are the absence of any progressive disclosure (a ~700-line monolith with reference tables inlined that belong in reference files) and a few sections that describe rather than show code.

Suggestions

Move stable reference material into one-level-deep bundle files (e.g. references/types.md for the §2 interface definitions and §9 TranscriptEntry kinds table, references/helpers.md for the §6 helper table) and replace the inline copies with clearly signaled links, keeping SKILL.md as an overview plus the step-by-step workflow.

Add an executable skeleton for server/execute.ts — the document calls it 'the most important file' yet provides only a 9-step outline; even a ~30-line template showing config parsing, env building, runChildProcess, and result assembly would close the largest actionability gap.

Deduplicate the untrusted-output guidance between §3.3 and §8 by keeping the defensive-parsing bullets in one place (or moving them to a references/security.md) and cross-referencing from the other section.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with Paperclip-specific material Claude cannot already know (interfaces, env vars, helper tables, registry code) and avoids tutorial filler, fitting the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' anchor. It misses 5 because of some redundancy — e.g. the 'Treat agent output as untrusted' guidance appears with overlapping bullets in both §3.3 and §8, and the PAPERCLIP_* env vars are listed in §3.3 while `buildPaperclipEnv` re-covers them in §6.

4 / 5

Actionability

Most guidance is concrete and near copy-paste ready: a full package.json, root index.ts, registry registration code for all three consumers, and real code for the skills-injection pattern. It stops short of 5 because some key pieces are descriptive prose instead of executable code — notably server/execute.ts (called 'the most important file' but only given as a 9-step outline) and the ui config-fields component.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced (§3 create package → per-module implementation → §4 registration → §11 checklist), with explicit validation checkpoints (§2.1/§3.3 testEnvironment contract, §10 testing requirements) and genuine error-recovery feedback loops (the unknown-session retry pattern with `clearSession: true`, cwd-aware resume). This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and a checklist for a complex process.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything lives inline in a ~700-line SKILL.md. Structure is good (11 numbered sections, tables, anchors), but reference-style content that would sit naturally in separate files — the §9 TranscriptEntry kinds table, the §6 helper reference, and the full interface definitions of §2 — is inlined, matching the anchor where content that should be separate is inline. It is above 2 because the inlined material is at least well-sectioned and navigable, and below 4 because nothing is offloaded to one-level-deep reference files.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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.

A well-formed description with an explicit 'Use when' clause carrying concrete, natural trigger terms and a clearly delineated niche. The only soft spot is that the 'what' names just two verbs (create, modify) rather than enumerating several specific capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Paperclip agent adapters across server, UI, and CLI surfaces") and two concrete actions ("Create or modify"), matching the anchor for naming the domain with 1-2 concrete actions. It does not reach 4 because it lists only two verbs rather than several specific actions with their outcomes.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions with concrete trigger phrases: what ("Create or modify Paperclip agent adapters across server, UI, and CLI surfaces") and when ("Use when adding support for a new CLI agent, API agent, custom process, or adapter package"), mirroring the 5-anchor example's structure. It cannot exceed 5, and it is clearly above the 4 anchor where the 'when' is only generically stated.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when" clause enumerates several natural trigger terms a developer would say ("adding support for a new CLI agent, API agent, custom process, or adapter package"), giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because it offers few synonyms or shorthand variations beyond those four phrases.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Paperclip agent adapters" carves out a clear niche with distinct trigger vocabulary ("adapter package", "CLI agent", "API agent"), so it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. It sits above the 4 anchor because the triggers are tied to adapter-specific work rather than just a file format.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (717 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
paperclipai/paperclip
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.