CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

error-transport-context

Preserve service request context across MCP and CLI error envelopes.

58

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.squad/skills/error-transport-context/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

76%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 concise, well-structured, and gives concrete file-and-symbol-level guidance, but it frames a design pattern rather than a verifiable workflow and omits explicit validation/verification steps for the error-envelope enrichment it prescribes.

Suggestions

Add a short verification checklist for the enrichment workflow (e.g. 'Confirm both MCP and CLI emit command/sessionId', 'Run existing error-field tests', 'Assert compatibility fields error/errorMessage/isError still serialize').

Sequence the Patterns into an ordered apply-then-verify workflow so the steps have explicit checkpoints, lifting workflow_clarity above 3.

Consider one minimal executable snippet (e.g. the request-context helper signature in ProcessAsync) to move actionability from 4 toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-structured with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line conveys a specific actionable rule or example pointer, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, file-and-symbol-level guidance ('Put shared diagnostics on ServiceResponse', 'Stamp failed responses with command and sessionId', specific .cs file:method pointers), but the patterns are directives rather than copy-paste executable code, fitting 'mostly executable guidance; minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The body organizes Context/Patterns/Examples/Anti-Patterns but describes a design pattern rather than a sequenced workflow, and for error-envelope enrichment it lacks explicit validation/verification checkpoints (e.g. confirm both MCP and CLI emit the field, run existing tests), sitting at the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is appropriately organized into clear one-level sections (Context, Patterns, Examples, Anti-Patterns) with example file paths as inline pointers rather than nested references; a short single-file skill with good structure, fitting 'good structure; minor organization gaps'.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 states a concrete capability and a distinctive niche but is missing an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness, and its trigger terms are technical jargon rather than natural user phrases.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when improving error diagnostics across the MCP/CLI/service seam without changing Core or COM behavior.'

Add natural user-facing trigger terms and synonyms (e.g. 'MCP errors', 'CLI failures', 'error diagnostics', 'request context') alongside the technical jargon.

Optionally enumerate the concrete actions (preserve, stamp, mirror fields) to lift specificity from 4 toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a concrete action ('Preserve service request context') and a specific surface ('MCP and CLI error envelopes'), but describes a single capability rather than a comprehensive list of actions, fitting the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor between 3 and 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear 'what' ('Preserve service request context...') but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant technical keywords ('MCP', 'CLI', 'error envelopes', 'service request context') but lacks the natural trigger phrases a user would actually say and omits common synonyms, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The narrow niche of preserving request context across MCP and CLI error envelopes is fairly distinct with low overlap risk, though it could still border on generic error-handling skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
sbroenne/mcp-server-excel
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.