CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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

57

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

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 body is an exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced audit procedure with explicit validation feedback loops and concrete commands throughout. Its two real weaknesses are length — the closing checklist summary and severity lists restate earlier steps — and a fully monolithic structure with no bundle files, keeping the detailed per-domain checklists inline instead of split into reference files.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically compress the 30-line 'Checklist Summary', which restates Steps 1–10 nearly verbatim; the 'Validation Output' list already serves as the final gate.

Split the long domain-specific sections (resolved-secret/model-input provenance, dynamic selectors, memory-load safety) into reference files under references/ and link to them one level deep, keeping SKILL.md as the overview.

Trim the 'Report Format' severity lists to the criteria not already enumerated in Steps 3–8 to cut duplicated tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and largely padding-free — it explains no concepts Claude already knows and every line is a domain-specific rule, path, or command. However, at ~500 lines it is noticeably over budget: the 30-line 'Checklist Summary' restates Steps 1–10 nearly verbatim, and the 'Report Format' severity lists duplicate criteria already enumerated in Steps 3–8. That duplication puts it at anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but could be tightened') rather than 4, and well above anchor 2 since there is no conceptual over-explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete: exact file paths for every artifact ('apps/sim/blocks/registry-maps.ts', 'packages/deployment-config/src/integrations.json'), copy-paste-ready commands ('bun run tool-metadata:generate', 'bun run scripts/generate-docs.ts'), and worked syntax examples for every convention (condition objects, `` `https://api.service.com/v1/${params.id.trim()}` ``, visibility rules per param class). This matches the anchor-5 'copy-paste ready commands; specific examples cover the common cases'; it does not fall to 4 because no key executable detail is missing.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–10 are explicitly sequenced (gather files → pull docs → validate tools → block → scopes → deployment → pagination → memory → errors → report/fix), with explicit validation checkpoints in 'Validation Output' (lint, TypeScript, tests, catalog/docs checks) and genuine feedback loops — including 'any test you added actually fails without its fix (revert it once and watch it go red)'. The destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply because validation is pervasive; this matches anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is clear (numbered steps, per-area checklists), and the skill defers to sibling skills by path ('read .agents/skills/memory-load-check/SKILL.md', 'apply the validate-selector skill') rather than duplicating them — but the bundle has no reference files at all, and ~500 lines of detailed checklists (provenance boundaries, dynamic selectors, memory-load rules) are inlined in SKILL.md where the anchor examples expect them split out. This lands at anchor 3 ('some structure; content that should be separate is inline') rather than 2 because headers and navigation are good and nothing is buried; it cannot be 4–5 since no one-level-deep bundle references exist.

3 / 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 is specific and unambiguous about what it validates and against which sources, with a clearly defined niche. Its main weaknesses are the complete absence of a 'Use when...' trigger clause and thin coverage of natural synonyms a user might say, which cap completeness and trigger-term quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to validate, audit, or review an existing Sim integration or reports issues with a tool/block/registry entry.'

Include natural trigger variations users would actually say ('validate', 'audit', 'check the integration') so the description matches phrasings beyond the literal term 'validate'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names concrete validation targets — 'tools, block, registry, and resolved-secret/model-input boundaries' — and the sources it validates against ('the service's API docs and Sim execution conventions'). It sits at anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than 5 because 'Validate' is the only verb: the component list is specific but coverage of what the validation entails is partial, and it is not as action-comprehensive as the anchor-5 example listing multiple distinct operations.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete (validate an existing Sim integration against API docs and conventions), but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'an existing Sim integration'. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which also rules out the anchor-4 'both present, when could be more explicit'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms are present ('Validate', 'Sim integration', 'API docs', 'tools', 'block', 'registry'), which a user in this codebase would plausibly say. It falls at anchor 3 rather than 4 because there is no coverage of natural variations or synonyms — nothing like 'audit', 'check', 'review the integration', or service-name phrasings that users would commonly use when invoking this.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear ('Sim integration' validation with provenance-boundary specifics), making it mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk against generic skills. It is not anchor 5 because the domain contains closely related skills it itself references (validate-selector, memory-load-check), so a bare request like 'validate this' carries some overlap risk with those neighbors.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (502 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
simstudioai/sim
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.