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

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

85%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 with a clear, well-validated multi-step workflow and concrete commands, but it is a monolithic file that inlines detailed checklists rather than progressively disclosing them through separate referenced files.

Suggestions

Extract large per-step checklists (e.g., the resolved-secret/model-input provenance rules and the block validation details) into separate reference files under ./references/, with concise summaries and clearly signaled one-level-deep links from SKILL.md.

Tighten the provenance prose and regeneration rationale to remove explanatory padding that assumes Claude needs the background.

Move the derived-artifact regeneration detail into its own reference file so the main workflow stays a lean overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is long but dense and actionable, assuming Claude's competence about tools/blocks without explaining them; minor instances of over-explanation (e.g., some provenance prose and the regen-diff rationale) could be trimmed without losing clarity.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete checklist items, exact file paths, executable commands (e.g., 'bun run tool-metadata:generate'), specific code patterns, and precise severity-grouped issue lists that are directly copy-paste ready.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Sequences work into clearly numbered Steps 1-10 with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops (e.g., regenerate, re-validate, revert-and-watch-test-go-red), and a closing 10-point verification checklist.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The single monolithic ~480-line file inlines everything that could be split into separate reference files; there are no bundle files and no clearly signaled one-level-deep references, so structure is present but content is not appropriately split.	3 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 clearly niched to Sim integration validation, but lacks an explicit trigger clause and relies on domain jargon rather than natural user phrasing. Adding a "Use when..." sentence with common trigger terms would raise completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing or auditing an existing Sim integration for correctness and convention compliance.'

Include natural trigger terms and synonyms a user might say (e.g., 'review integration,' 'check integration,' 'audit service block') alongside the specialized jargon.

Optionally name 1-2 concrete validation actions (e.g., 'checks tool IDs, block-tool alignment, OAuth scopes, and provenance boundaries') to lift specificity toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete validation targets ("tools, block, registry, and resolved-secret/model-input boundaries") and names the reference standard ("the service's API docs and Sim execution conventions"), but the action "Validate...against" stays general rather than enumerating concrete validation actions like checking IDs or response mapping.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does (validate an existing integration against API docs and conventions) but provides no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause; per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant keywords ("Validate," "Sim integration," "tools, block, registry," "API docs") but leans on specialized jargon ("model-input boundaries," "resolved-secret") and misses common natural variations a user would say beyond "validate integration."	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description carves out a clear niche (Sim integrations specifically, with named internal artifacts) and is unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill, giving it minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: simstudioai/sim
Path: .agents/skills/validate-integration/SKILL.md
Commit: 7945b29

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.