CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

connect-recommend

Use this skill when the user asks about Stripe Connect configuration, charge patterns, Dashboard access, or how to get started with Connect, is building a marketplace, platform, multi-vendor store, gig platform, or subscription platform, needs to pay out sellers, vendors, or providers, mentions split payments, revenue sharing, multi-party payments, or similar payment distribution concepts, provides a company URL or business description for a recommendation, builds SaaS that routes money between parties (for example, POS, booking, invoicing — not operational SaaS without payment routing), asks about onboarding or KYC for merchants, sellers, and vendors, mentions connected account Dashboard or responsibility configurations, or asks about payment flows, white-label payments, or embedded payments.

64

Quality

80%

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 ./providers/grok/plugin/skills/connect-recommend/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is connect-recommend in stripe/ai

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

A well-engineered interactive workflow with excellent sequencing, mandatory validation gates, error-recovery loops, and highly concrete executable guidance, backed by a real, well-organized one-level-deep reference bundle. The main weaknesses are repetition — the public-preview disclosure and checklist are duplicated multiple times — and inline duplication of compatibility/decision-matrix content that belongs in the reference files.

Suggestions

Centralize the repeated Express public-preview disclosure (preview API version, Radar, new-accounts-only note) in a single reference or one canonical block, and reference it from Step 3 and Step 4a instead of restating it three times.

Replace the enumerated blocked/allowed tuples in Step 4a items 3 with a pointer to compatibility-matrix.md (keep only the two general rules: BLOCKED → never present + mechanism + nearest allowed fix), and break the ~180-word Step 3 SaaS guardrail run-on into a short bulleted rule list or move it to decision-matrix.md.

Replace the four near-identical checklist re-prints with a single instruction to mark the corresponding line complete after each step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly earns its tokens, but there is notable repetition: the identical Express public-preview disclosure (preview API version link, Radar recommendation, new-accounts-only note) is spelled out in full in both the Step 3 SaaS guardrail and twice more in Step 4a, and the progress checklist is re-printed four times. The single ~180-word run-on SaaS guardrail bullet (Step 3) is hard to parse and duplicates decision-matrix content. This matches anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened") — not 2, since nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, and not 4, since the duplicated preview/compatibility prose could clearly be centralized in a reference file.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only interactive skill the guidance is fully executable: exact AskUserQuestion scripts with literal option labels, concrete Grep patterns ("transfers.create", "account.updated", "transfer_data"), exact warning copy with links, specific embedded-component names, and precise fee-economics formulas. This matches anchor 5 — copy-paste-ready material covering the common cases; scoring notes confirm absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–6 are explicitly sequenced with a progress checklist updated after each phase, mandatory checkpoints ("Step 4a — Compatibility validation (MANDATORY before presenting recommendation)", the fee-structure checkpoint before Step 4), and a real error-recovery feedback loop: BLOCKED combinations are never presented, the nearest allowed alternative is applied, and the recommendation is re-run. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklists).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Eight reference files exist, all cited by exact path ("<references/decision-matrix.md>") at the point of use with a stated purpose, and verified one level deep — no reference file points to another. However, the body inlines substantial content that duplicates the bundle: Step 4a re-enumerates specific blocked/allowed combinations that belong in compatibility-matrix.md, and the Step 3 SaaS guardrail restates decision-matrix logic. This matches anchor 4 ("good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps") rather than 5, where content would be cleanly split with the body as a lean overview.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

68%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.

A trigger-rich, well-scoped description whose "when" guidance is among the strongest possible, but it never explicitly states what the skill does (recommend a Stripe Connect integration configuration, validate compatibility, produce a plan). Adding a leading capability sentence would make it fully complete. Third-person/trigger phrasing conventions are respected and there is no fluff.

Suggestions

Open the description with an explicit capability statement in third person, e.g. "Recommends the right Stripe Connect integration configuration (dashboard type, responsibility settings, charge pattern, fee structure) and validates combination compatibility", then follow with the existing trigger clauses.

State the deliverable explicitly ("generates a markdown recommendation plan and implementation priorities") so the "what" is concrete rather than implied by the single word "recommendation".

Trim near-duplicate trigger clauses (e.g. "asks about payment flows" overlaps "split payments, revenue sharing, multi-party payments") to reduce length without losing coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The domain is clearly named ("Stripe Connect configuration, charge patterns, Dashboard access") and one action is implied ("for a recommendation"), but no concrete capability is explicitly stated — the description never says the skill recommends a configuration, validates compatibility, or generates a plan. It names domain and only an implied action, matching anchor 3; not 4 because multiple specific actions are never listed, not 2 because the domain terms are concrete rather than minimal or generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and exhaustive ("Use this skill when the user asks about... is building... needs to pay out... mentions..."), but the "what" is only weakly implied — "provides a company URL or business description for a recommendation" hints at the action without stating it. This sits between anchor 2 (only "when" without "what") and anchor 4 (both present): the "when" is maximally specific while the "what" is buried and vague, so 3 is the best fit rather than 4, which would require a stated capability.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger coverage is comprehensive with natural synonyms and phrasings users would actually say: "marketplace, platform, multi-vendor store, gig platform", "split payments, revenue sharing, multi-party payments", "pay out sellers, vendors, or providers", "onboarding or KYC", "white-label payments, or embedded payments". It even scopes edge cases ("POS, booking, invoicing — not operational SaaS without payment routing"). This matches anchor 5's comprehensive coverage including synonyms; nothing natural is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Stripe Connect niche is clear with distinct triggers ("connected account Dashboard or responsibility configurations", "split payments") and an explicit exclusion carve-out for non-payment-routing SaaS. Minor overlap risk remains with a hypothetical general Stripe-integration or payments skill on broad phrases like "asks about payment flows" — matching anchor 4 ("mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills") rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

stripe/ai

Path

providers/grok/plugin/skills/connect-recommend/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.