agent-agentic-payments
Agent skill for agentic-payments - invoke with $agent-agentic-payments
44
13%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
2.22xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-agentic-payments/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is an extremely weak description that fails on every dimension. It provides no information about what the skill does, when to use it, or what user requests should trigger it. It reads more like a technical stub or placeholder than a functional skill description.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does (e.g., 'Processes payments, handles refunds, manages subscriptions, checks transaction status').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks about payments, billing, charges, refunds, invoices, or transaction processing').
Remove the invocation command from the description and replace with capability-focused language that helps Claude distinguish this skill from others.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It only states it is an 'agent skill for agentic-payments' with an invocation command, providing zero information about what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only provides an invocation command with no explanation of capabilities or usage triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only keyword is 'agentic-payments' which is technical jargon, not a natural term a user would say. There are no natural trigger terms like 'payment', 'invoice', 'charge', 'billing', or 'transaction'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so vague that it provides no clear niche. 'Agentic-payments' hints at a payments domain but without any specifics, it could conflict with any payment-related skill and provides no basis for differentiation. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is significantly over-padded with explanatory content that Claude doesn't need (use cases, security marketing language, protocol descriptions) while lacking the operational specifics that would make it truly actionable. The tool call examples are the strongest element but are undermined by the absence of error handling, validation checkpoints, and clear decision logic for when to use each tool. The content reads more like product documentation than an actionable skill.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Real-world use cases', 'Payment protocol standards', 'Security standards', and 'Quality standards' sections entirely—these describe concepts Claude can infer and don't provide actionable guidance.
Add explicit validation and error-handling steps to the workflow, e.g., 'If signature verification fails, do X' or 'If consensus times out, retry with Y'.
Split the tool API reference into a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with the most common workflow pattern.
Add a concrete end-to-end example showing a complete payment flow from mandate creation through authorization with actual decision points and expected responses.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanatory content Claude doesn't need. Lists of use cases, security standards descriptions, protocol explanations, and quality standards are padding that doesn't add actionable value. The 'Real-world use cases you enable' section is pure filler. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The JavaScript tool call examples are concrete and show specific parameters, which is useful. However, they appear to be illustrative rather than executable (no error handling, no real integration context), and the workflow steps are high-level descriptions rather than specific instructions for what to do in each situation. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is listed but lacks validation checkpoints and error recovery. For a payment system involving cryptographic signing and multi-agent consensus, there are no explicit verification steps between stages, no error handling guidance, and no feedback loops for failed consensus or rejected authorizations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content—tool API reference, use cases, security standards, quality standards, workflow—is inlined in a single document. The API reference alone could be a separate file, and the use cases/security sections add bulk without aiding task execution. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- ruvnet/claude-flow
- Commit
01070ed
- 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.