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

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, 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, refunds, invoices, or transaction processing.'

Remove the invocation syntax from the description (it's metadata, not a capability description) and replace with functional details that distinguish this from other potential payment or agent skills.

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 provides no distinguishing characteristics. Without knowing what the skill does, it could conflict with any payment-related or agent-related skill.	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 doesn't help Claude execute payment tasks—use case lists, security marketing language, and protocol descriptions consume tokens without adding actionable value. The tool call examples are the strongest element but lack error handling and response format documentation. The workflow needs explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery paths, especially given the financial and cryptographic nature of the operations.

Suggestions

Remove the 'Real-world use cases you enable', 'Payment protocol standards', and 'Security standards' sections entirely—these describe concepts Claude can infer and don't aid task execution.

Add expected response formats for each tool call so Claude knows how to parse results and handle errors (e.g., what does authorize_payment return on success vs. insufficient balance?).

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow: e.g., 'After signing, verify the signature before proceeding to authorization; if verification fails, re-sign or abort.'

Extract the full tool API reference into a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep only a quick-start example in the main skill body.

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 a real context (placeholder keys, IDs), and there's no guidance on error handling, response formats, or what to do when calls fail.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 6-step workflow is listed but lacks validation checkpoints and error recovery. For a system involving financial transactions and cryptographic operations, there are no feedback loops (e.g., what to do if signature verification fails, if consensus times out, 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, 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: 398f7c2

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.