validate-integration

Validate an existing Sim integration (tools, block, registry, and resolved-secret/model-input boundaries) against the service's API docs and Sim execution conventions

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/validate-integration/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%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 content is highly actionable and exceptionally well-sequenced with strong validation feedback loops for a destructive/batch audit task. Its weaknesses are verbosity in the provenance/regen prose and a monolithic single-file structure that inlines material which could live in separate reference files.

Suggestions

Move the resolved-secret/model-input provenance rules and the regenerate-artifacts deep-dive into separate reference files (e.g. references/provenance.md, references/regen.md) and link to them from the main checklist to improve progressive disclosure.

Tighten the provenance prose in Step 3 into checklist items matching the rest of the file, trimming explanatory philosophy that the auditor can infer from the rules.

Confirm the referenced `.agents/skills/memory-load-check/SKILL.md` path exists in the bundle or note that it is an external skill dependency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and mostly checklist-driven with every item earning its place, but sections like the resolved-secret/model-input provenance prose (Steps 3 and 10) and the regenerate-artifacts explanation include explanatory philosophy beyond a checklist that could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete file paths, exact shell commands (e.g. `bun run tool-metadata:generate`, `bun run integration-catalog:check`), exact condition syntax, and copy-paste code patterns like `` `https://api.service.com/v1/${params.id.trim()}` ``, covering the common cases comprehensively.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 10-step sequence is paired with explicit validation checkpoints (the no-guessed-schemas hard rule, an 8-point validation-output checklist, regen diff review, and the "added test must fail without its fix" check) plus feedback loops for error recovery on destructive/batch operations.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is well-organized into clearly headed steps and signals its one external reference (`.agents/skills/memory-load-check/SKILL.md`), but no bundle files exist and substantial deep-reference material (provenance rules, regen-artifact details) is inlined in a single ~28KB file rather than split into separate reference files.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 is specific, well-scoped, and distinctive, clearly communicating what the skill validates and against which references. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, which leaves the invocation context only weakly implied.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when validating or auditing an existing Sim integration for correctness and convention compliance."

Consider adding a couple of natural trigger phrases users might say (e.g. "audit integration", "check integration conventions") to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description enumerates several concrete validation targets in its parenthetical — "tools, block, registry, and resolved-secret/model-input boundaries" — and names two reference sources (API docs, Sim execution conventions), giving multiple specific actions with only minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clearly stated (validate an existing Sim integration against API docs and conventions), but there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, so "when" is only weakly implied — per the rubric this caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural terms a user would say ("validate an integration", "Sim integration", "API docs") plus domain anchors ("registry", "block"), giving good keyword coverage with only a few natural variations missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It targets a clearly defined niche (Sim integration auditing with resolved-secret/model-input boundaries) using distinct triggers, giving minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 2 missing, 1 deeper-than-1-level	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: simstudioai/sim
Path: .agents/skills/validate-integration/SKILL.md
Commit: 417ae20

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.