CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

api-documentation

API documentation workflow for generating OpenAPI specs, creating developer guides, and maintaining comprehensive API documentation.

Quality

70%

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 ./skills/api-documentation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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 skill is a compact, well-structured workflow index with explicit scope/safety guidance and a quality-gates checklist. Its main weaknesses are missing per-phase validation checkpoints and vague action bullets that delegate detail to sub-skills without saying how execution is verified, plus minor duplication of the frontmatter description in the Overview and When-to-Use sections.

Suggestions

Add per-phase validation checkpoints and feedback loops (e.g., validate the generated OpenAPI spec with a linter after Phase 2 before moving to the developer guide; verify code examples actually execute before Phase 5).

Make phase actions concrete or defer them entirely to the invoked sub-skills — bullets like 'Note rate limits', 'Test examples', and 'Configure search' lack executable detail about what to actually do.

Resolve the inconsistency between Phase 5's 'Deploy docs' action and the scope note that 'deployment is a separate authorized action', and trim the Overview/When-to-Use sections that duplicate the frontmatter description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and does not re-teach known concepts, but the 'Overview' and 'When to Use This Workflow' sections duplicate the frontmatter description, and the per-phase 'Copy-Paste Prompts' restate the 'Skills to Invoke' lists — minor trimming opportunities that fit 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than 'every token earns its place'.

4 / 5

Actionability

The copy-paste prompts (e.g., 'Use @openapi-spec-generation to create OpenAPI specification') are concrete and executable, but the phase actions are high-level hints — 'Note rate limits', 'Test examples', 'Configure search' — with no execution details, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' rather than 'mostly executable guidance'.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1-7 are clearly sequenced and the Quality Gates checklist plus the safety notes ('Preview documentation locally before publishing', 'use explicit sandbox endpoints and test credentials') provide some checkpoints, but there are no per-phase validation steps or feedback loops (e.g., lint the OpenAPI spec before building the developer guide), fitting 'steps listed but validation gaps'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized index ('this document is an index, not an instruction to run every listed skill') that delegates each phase to a named sub-skill — appropriate structure for a workflow bundle. Minor gaps: 'Related Workflow Bundles' entries are bare names, and there is no pointer to where the referenced skills live, so it falls short of 'clear overview with well-signaled references'.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 communicates a clear domain and three concrete capabilities with natural trigger keywords, though one action is circular and synonym coverage is incomplete. Its biggest gap is the absence of any 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and leaves the 'when' question unanswered despite the body containing a When-to-Use section.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for API docs, an OpenAPI/Swagger spec, a developer guide, or an API portal.'

Include common synonyms such as 'Swagger' and 'API reference' so the description triggers on natural user phrasings it currently misses.

Replace the circular 'maintaining comprehensive API documentation' with a distinct capability from the body's scope, such as 'setting up interactive docs (Swagger UI/Redoc) and documentation sites'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain plus three actions — 'generating OpenAPI specs', 'creating developer guides', 'maintaining comprehensive API documentation' — but the third is circular with the domain itself and the body's fuller scope (code examples, interactive docs, documentation sites) is uncovered, matching 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' rather than comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('API documentation workflow for generating OpenAPI specs, creating developer guides...'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines — an exact anchor-3 match.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'API documentation', 'OpenAPI specs', and 'developer guides' are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage, but common synonyms and variations such as 'Swagger', 'API reference', and 'API docs' are missing, fitting 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'OpenAPI specs' and 'API documentation workflow' carve a fairly distinct niche, but 'creating developer guides' overlaps with general documentation and technical-writing skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than a clear niche with minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 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

sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Path

skills/api-documentation/SKILL.md

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.