agent-agentic-payments

Agent skill for agentic-payments - invoke with $agent-agentic-payments

2.22x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

2.22x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Risky

Do not use without reviewing

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-agentic-payments/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

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 provides virtually no useful information for skill selection. It only names the skill and its invocation command without describing any capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.

Suggestions

Describe concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Processes payments, handles refunds, manages subscriptions, and tracks transaction history.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about payments, billing, charges, invoices, refunds, or transaction processing.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-agentic-payments') from the description and replace it with functional content that helps Claude distinguish this skill from others.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for agentic-payments' is entirely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does.	1 / 3
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only states the invocation command, providing no functional or contextual information.	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', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it could conflict with any payment-related or agent-related skill. There are no distinct triggers or clear niche defined.	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 heavily padded with explanatory content (use cases, security descriptions, protocol standards) that doesn't help Claude execute payment tasks. While the tool call examples provide some concrete guidance, the lack of error handling, validation checkpoints, and progressive disclosure significantly weakens the skill. The content reads more like a product marketing document than an actionable skill file.

Suggestions

Remove the 'Real-world use cases', 'Payment protocol standards', 'Security standards', and 'Quality standards' sections—these are descriptive filler that Claude doesn't need to execute payment tasks.

Add explicit error handling and validation checkpoints to the workflow (e.g., 'If signature verification fails, do X; if consensus times out, do Y; if mandate balance insufficient, do Z').

Move the full tool API reference to a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep only a quick-start example in the main SKILL.md.

Add concrete end-to-end examples showing a complete payment flow from mandate creation through authorization with expected responses at each step.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with extensive explanatory content Claude doesn't need. Lists of use cases, security standards descriptions, quality standards, and protocol explanations are padding that doesn't help Claude execute tasks. 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 in context—there's no indication of how to handle responses, error cases, or actual integration. The workflow steps are descriptive rather than instructive.	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 feedback loops (e.g., what to do if consensus fails, if signature verification fails, or if mandate balance is insufficient). Missing validation steps for destructive/financial operations caps this at 2.	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, protocol descriptions—is inlined in a single document. The API reference alone should be in a separate file, and the use cases/security sections add bulk without aiding task execution.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/ruflo
Commit: 0f7c750

Reviewed: 3 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.