error-diagnostics-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,

Quality

51%

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-trace/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%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 well-sectioned and concise but lacks any executable, error-tracking-specific guidance — no code, commands, or concrete configuration — and its only external reference points to a file that is not present. Workflow steps are generic with no validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance: example structured-logging snippets, alert-rule configs, or integration setup commands for common services (Sentry/Bugsnag/etc.).

Replace the generic Instructions bullets with a sequenced error-tracking workflow that includes validation checkpoints (e.g., verify an alert fires, confirm error grouping).

Either create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' or remove the dangling reference so progressive disclosure is actually navigable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is relatively short, but it restates the frontmatter persona nearly verbatim and includes generic boilerplate instructions ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') that add little, fitting the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.	3 / 5
Actionability	There is no concrete code, commands, or specific configuration anywhere; guidance is high-level ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') with only a deliverable-category list, matching the 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps' anchor.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Output Format gives a sequenced 8-item deliverable list, but the Instructions are three generic bullets with no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for production-affecting setup, so per the destructive/batch cap workflow clarity cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and the playbook reference is one level deep and clearly signaled, but it points to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' which does not exist (no resources/ directory), so the navigation is broken rather than cleanly navigable.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 names a clear domain with several concrete actions and decent trigger keywords, but it is written in second person, is truncated mid-sentence, and omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. These issues cap completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g., 'Sets up error tracking systems, configures alerts, implements structured logging') and drop the 'You are an expert' persona framing.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when implementing error monitoring, configuring alerts, or setting up structured logging for production services.'

Complete the truncated sentence and add common synonyms/vendor names (e.g., Sentry, Bugsnag) to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the error-tracking domain and lists three concrete actions ('Set up error tracking systems, configure alerts, implement structured logging'), matching the anchor-4 example of several specific actions, but reduced by one for second-person voice ('You are an error tracking and observability expert') per the voice penalty, and the sentence is truncated mid-list with a trailing comma.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (set up tracking systems, configure alerts, structured logging) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ('error tracking', 'error monitoring', 'alerts', 'structured logging') with good keyword coverage, though it misses common synonyms and vendor names (e.g., Sentry, Bugsnag) that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Error tracking and observability is a fairly distinct niche with specific triggers, but it has minor overlap risk with related logging, monitoring, and DevOps skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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-diagnostics-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.