error-debugging-error-trace

You are an error tracking and observability expert specializing in implementing comprehensive error monitoring solutions. Set up error tracking systems, configure alerts, implement structured logging, and ensure teams can quickly identify and resolve production issues.

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 ./skills/error-debugging-error-trace/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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 concise and well-structured, but it sacrifices actionability for high-level bullets and lacks concrete validation checkpoints; progressive disclosure is undermined by a referenced playbook file that does not exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable example (e.g., a structured-logging JSON snippet or a Sentry/Datadog alert-routing config) to lift actionability above 3.

Turn 'Validate signal quality with test errors' into an explicit validation checkpoint with an error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., trigger a test error → confirm it is captured/grouped/alerted → fix routing if missing → re-test).

Either create the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md file or correct the path so the signaled reference resolves, making progressive disclosure one level deep and navigable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and section-based with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows — every line (Use/Do not use, Context, Instructions, Safety) earns its place, matching the level-5 'lean and efficient' anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level bullets ('Assess current error capture', 'Define severity levels', 'Configure logging, tracing, and alert routing') with no concrete code, commands, or specific configuration examples, matching the level-3 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequenced 5-step list is present, but validation is only a vague 'Validate signal quality with test errors' with no checkpoint or error-recovery loop; per the scoring notes, missing validation in a batch/production operation caps workflow_clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is reasonable with one signaled reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but the referenced file does not exist in any bundle directory and the path is inconsistent with the later 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' mention, so navigation is only partially effective — above a 2 but not a clean 4.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 specific and comprehensive in stating capabilities and sits in a distinct niche, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 and slightly weakens trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming concrete user requests (e.g., 'Use when setting up error monitoring, configuring Sentry/Datadog alerts, or debugging production error spikes').

Include natural synonyms and tool names users actually say (e.g., 'Sentry', 'Datadog', 'error monitoring', 'observability') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten the what/when pairing so both halves are explicit in a single sentence, as in the rubric's level-5 example.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Set up error tracking systems, configure alerts, implement structured logging, and ensure teams can quickly identify and resolve production issues' — covering the domain comprehensively, matching the level-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states 'what' (set up tracking, configure alerts, implement structured logging) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' / trigger clause for 'when' to use the skill, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural terms like 'error tracking', 'alerts', 'structured logging', and 'production issues', but lacks common synonyms or extension-style trigger phrasing (e.g., 'Sentry', 'error monitoring', 'observability') users might actually say, so it sits above a 3 but below 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche in error tracking/observability with distinct triggers and only minor overlap risk with closely related reliability/AIOps skills, landing above 3 but not quite at the minimal-conflict 5 anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/error-debugging-error-trace/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 1 day 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.