error-diagnostics-error-analysis

You are an expert error analysis specialist with deep expertise in debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions.

Quality

45%

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-diagnostics-error-analysis/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 with clear use/don't-use and safety sections, but it remains at an abstract instruction level—no concrete commands or examples, only implicit validation, and a referenced playbook file that is not present in the bundle.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance—example log-grep patterns, distributed-tracing queries, or a worked root-cause walkthrough—instead of abstract steps like 'narrow the issue with targeted experiments'.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint with a fix->retry loop in the Instructions, given the production-incident and production-change context noted in the Safety section.

Either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` under a real bundle directory (e.g. references/) or remove the dangling reference so the progressive-disclosure navigation actually resolves.

Drop the duplicate persona sentence at the top of the body and tighten the Context paragraph to remove concepts Claude already knows.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with short bulleted sections, but the opening 'You are an expert error analysis specialist...' sentence duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim, and the Context paragraph re-explains concepts (structured logging, distributed tracing, observability tools) that Claude already knows.	2 / 3
Actionability	The Instructions give a clear sequenced process, but the steps are abstract ('Reproduce or narrow the issue with targeted experiments', 'Identify root cause and validate with evidence') with no concrete commands, trace/log queries, or worked examples.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A sequence is present (gather -> reproduce/narrow -> identify root cause -> propose fixes), but validation is only implicit ('validate with evidence') with no explicit checkpoint or fix->retry feedback loop, which the rubric caps at 2 for risky production work.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and the playbook reference is one level deep and signaled in the Resources section, but `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist in any bundle directory (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ present), so the reference dangles and navigation fails.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

40%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 states a clear domain and a few actions but is written as a second-person persona line with no 'Use when' trigger guidance, which caps completeness and triggers the voice penalty. It is adequate but underspecified for reliable triggering.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person as concrete capabilities, e.g. 'Investigates production incidents, performs root-cause analysis across services, and designs observability and error-handling improvements.'

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when investigating production incidents, recurring errors, or designing error handling and observability improvements.'

Include natural user variations (logs, traces, root cause, error reports, stack traces) so the description matches phrases users actually say.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the error-analysis domain and several actions ('debugging distributed systems, analyzing production incidents, and implementing comprehensive observability solutions'), but these are framed as abstract expertise rather than concrete capabilities, and the second-person 'You are an expert...' voice invokes the rubric's -1 specificity penalty (base 2 -> 1).	1 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so the 'when' guidance is entirely missing, which caps completeness at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain terms appear ('error analysis', 'debugging', 'production incidents', 'observability'), but they are embedded in an expertise sentence rather than phrased as natural user triggers, and common variations like 'log analysis', 'traces', or 'root cause' are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The incident/observability niche is somewhat specific, but 'debugging' is broad and would overlap with general debugging skills, and no distinct triggers are given to disambiguate.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 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-diagnostics-error-analysis/SKILL.md
Commit: e63f7dd

Reviewed: 13 days 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.