CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

labarchive-integration

Electronic lab notebook API integration. Access notebooks, manage entries/attachments, backup notebooks, integrate with Protocols.io/Jupyter/REDCap, for programmatic ELN workflows.

54

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 ./backend/cli/skills/other/labarchive-integration/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.

A well-structured, largely executable integration guide with real scripts and one-level-deep references. Its main weaknesses are a padded generic Best Practices section, missing verification checkpoints in batch backup workflows, and integration/file-type detail that should live in the referenced files.

Suggestions

Replace the generic Best Practices section with LabArchives-specific guidance, and move the eight-platform integration catalogue and supported file-type list into references/integrations.md, linking from the body.

Add an explicit validation step to the backup and backup-all workflows (e.g. verify archive integrity and entry counts after download) with a fix-and-retry loop.

Make the Python examples self-contained by defining where user_email and auth_token come from, and note the labarchives-py install prerequisite before the first code block that imports it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The Best Practices section restates knowledge Claude already has ('Always wrap API calls in try-except blocks', 'Implement appropriate delays between API calls'), and the eight-platform integration catalogue plus file-type list pad the body. Most sections are otherwise tight and instructional, keeping it above 'noticeably verbose'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides executable bash commands (e.g. 'python3 scripts/notebook_operations.py backup --uid USER_ID --nbid NOTEBOOK_ID'), concrete API endpoint formats, and runnable Python client examples. Minor gaps — undefined 'auth_token'/'USER_ID' placeholders and dependence on an externally-cloned labarchives-py package — keep it short of copy-paste-ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Common Workflows are listed as coherent numbered steps, but batch/destructive operations (backup-all iterating over all notebooks) lack validation checkpoints inside the workflow — verification only appears as a generic best-practice bullet. The batch-operation cap therefore holds the score at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All referenced bundle files exist and are one level deep, clearly signaled inline ('refer to references/authentication_guide.md') and enumerated in a closing Resources section. Some inline detail (the integration catalogue, supported file types) duplicates content that belongs in references/integrations.md, preventing a 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

A solidly specific description with concrete actions and good domain keywords, undermined by a missing 'Use when...' trigger clause and the absence of the platform name 'LabArchives', which hurts both completeness and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when working with LabArchives, electronic lab notebooks (ELN), or programmatic notebook backup and data upload.'

Name the platform 'LabArchives' explicitly so the skill is distinguishable from other ELN-platform skills and from generic Jupyter/REDCap tasks.

Fold in the site-reports and user/permission-management capabilities to round out coverage of what the skill does.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Access notebooks, manage entries/attachments, backup notebooks, integrate with Protocols.io/Jupyter/REDCap' lists several specific concrete actions. Minor coverage gaps (site reports, user/permission management from the body are absent) keep it below comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; 'for programmatic ELN workflows' only weakly implies when. Per the rubric guideline this caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords ('electronic lab notebook', 'ELN', 'backup notebooks', 'entries/attachments') plus named platforms. It misses the most natural trigger phrase of all — 'LabArchives' — and common variations like 'lab notebook backup', so not comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ELN niche is fairly specific, but omitting the platform name 'LabArchives' makes it overlap other ELN-platform skills, and mentioning Jupyter and REDCap risks triggering for general Jupyter or clinical-data tasks. It is somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

synthetic-sciences/openscience

Path

backend/cli/skills/other/labarchive-integration/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.