error-transport-context
Preserve service request context across MCP and CLI error envelopes.
40
40%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.squad/skills/error-transport-context/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is overly abstract and jargon-heavy, failing to communicate concrete actions or when the skill should be selected. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause and does not include natural trigger terms a user would employ. The niche domain (MCP/CLI error envelopes) provides slight distinctiveness but is insufficient to compensate for the other weaknesses.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when handling errors from MCP tool calls or CLI commands that return error responses.'
Replace abstract language with concrete actions, e.g., 'Extracts original request details from MCP and CLI error responses, maps error codes, and retries failed service calls with preserved context.'
Include natural user-facing keywords such as 'error handling', 'retry', 'failed request', 'MCP tool error', 'CLI error' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses abstract language like 'preserve service request context' and 'error envelopes' without listing any concrete actions. It does not specify what the skill actually does in practical terms. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description vaguely addresses 'what' (preserve context across error envelopes) but provides no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Both dimensions are weak. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The terms 'MCP', 'CLI error envelopes', and 'service request context' are highly technical jargon that users would not naturally say. There are no common user-facing trigger terms included. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'MCP and CLI error envelopes' is somewhat niche and narrows the domain, but the description is still vague enough that it could overlap with other error-handling or context-preservation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a concise, well-structured skill that clearly defines the boundaries of where diagnostics should live (shared ServiceResponse, not host-specific wrappers). Its main weakness is the lack of concrete code examples showing the actual implementation pattern—the Examples section lists file paths but doesn't show code. Adding a brief before/after code snippet and an explicit implementation sequence with a verification step would significantly improve actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add a concrete code snippet showing how to enrich failures in ProcessAsync() with command and sessionId fields, and what the resulting error JSON should look like.
Add a brief ordered workflow: 1) Add fields to ServiceResponse, 2) Update ExcelToolsBase serialization, 3) Update CliErrorOutput, 4) Verify existing tests still pass to confirm backward compatibility.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every bullet earns its place. No explanation of what MCP or CLI is, no padding. The content assumes Claude understands the codebase architecture and focuses purely on the delta knowledge needed. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific file paths and names concrete fields (command, sessionId), but lacks executable code snippets showing how to actually implement the enrichment in ProcessAsync() or how the serialized error JSON should look. It describes rather than demonstrates. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The patterns and anti-patterns establish clear boundaries, but there's no sequenced workflow for implementing changes across the three files, and no validation/verification step to confirm the changes maintain compatibility with existing clients and tests. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, focused skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (Context, Patterns, Examples, Anti-Patterns) that are easy to scan and navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- sbroenne/mcp-server-excel
- Commit
e8764a6
- 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.