CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

benchmark-agents

Advanced AI agent benchmark scenarios that push Vercel's cutting-edge platform features — Workflow SDK, AI Gateway, MCP, Chat SDK, Queues, Flags, Sandbox, and multi-agent orchestration. Designed to stress-test skill injection for complex, multi-system builds.

47

Quality

59%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/benchmark-agents/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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.

This is a strong operational runbook: exact commands, an explicitly sequenced eval loop with validation gates, and a built-in feedback cycle for fixing skills. Its main weaknesses are duplication and time-sensitive version history inlined in the main file, plus scenario prompts given only as summaries rather than ready-to-use text. Moving the scenario table and issue history into reference files would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the 12-scenario table and the 'Common Issues Found in Evals' version-history table into a references/ file (e.g. references/scenarios.md and references/issue-history.md), keeping only the tier summary and current canonical patterns in SKILL.md.

Provide the full literal prompt text for at least the Tier 1 scenarios so evals are copy-paste ready, rather than only prompt summaries plus the standard closing sentence.

Deduplicate the `claude --print` / eval-scripts prohibition (stated in both 'How Evals Work' and the DO NOT list) and replace the hardcoded `/Users/johnlindquist/dev/...` path with the `~/dev/...` variable used elsewhere.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and command-heavy with essentially no re-teaching of known concepts, but it can be tightened: the `claude --print` prohibition is stated twice (in 'How Evals Work' and again in the DO NOT list), and the 14-row 'Common Issues Found in Evals' table embeds plugin version numbers (v0.8.0–v0.9.9) — time-sensitive data outside any deprecated/old-patterns section. This is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary content or could be tightened', not score 2, since the padding is localized rather than pervasive.

3 / 5

Actionability

Setup, monitoring, and verification sections give exact copy-paste commands (`npx add-plugin https://github.com/vercel/vercel-plugin -s project -y`, `wezterm cli spawn --cwd … -- /bin/zsh -ic …`, grep one-liners with YES/NO echoes). It falls short of fully copy-paste ready, though: the 12 scenarios provide only prompt summaries ('PDF Q&A with embeddings, citations, multi-step reasoning') rather than usable prompts, and the parallel-launch block abbreviates paths (`--cwd .../tarot-deck-$TS`).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The full eval loop is explicitly sequenced (setup → launch → monitor → verify → fix → release → repeat) with concrete checkpoints: 'wait ~25s for SessionStart hooks', YES/NO structure checks, and release gates `bun run typecheck && bun test && bun run validate`. A feedback loop is present — issues found feed back into skill fixes and re-running evals — matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers make the ~310-line document navigable, but there are no bundle files at all — the 12-scenario table, the version-history issue table, and the verification grep catalog are reference material inlined in the main file. This matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'; it is not score 4 because there are no one-level-deep references despite the length.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

28%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 functions more as a technology inventory than a capability statement: it names many Vercel platform features but says almost nothing about what the skill does operationally, and it contains no 'Use when' trigger guidance. Its one distinguishing element — stress-testing skill injection — is buried in jargon. Adding concrete actions and an explicit trigger clause would move it substantially up every dimension.

Suggestions

Replace the technology list with the skill's concrete actions, e.g. 'Launches interactive Claude Code eval sessions via WezTerm, monitors hook firing and skill-injection claims in debug logs, verifies generated code against expected patterns, and produces a coverage report'.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when running or verifying evals for the Vercel plugin, checking skill injection claims, or benchmarking agent builds on Vercel platform features'.

Trim buzzwords ('cutting-edge', 'complex, multi-system builds', 'multi-agent orchestration') that add no trigger value and overlap with general Vercel development skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Vercel's cutting-edge platform features — Workflow SDK, AI Gateway, MCP, Chat SDK, Queues, Flags, Sandbox') but the only actions offered are 'push' and 'stress-test skill injection' — the concrete operational actions (launch sessions, verify injection, produce coverage report) never appear. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' rather than score 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

There is no 'Use when…' or equivalent trigger guidance, and the 'what' is itself vague — 'Advanced AI agent benchmark scenarios that push… platform features' and 'Designed to stress-test skill injection' describe intent, not what the skill operationally does. This fits anchor 2 ('Has a vague what and no when') better than anchor 3, which requires a clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords are dominated by technical jargon ('Workflow SDK', 'skill injection', 'multi-system builds', 'multi-agent orchestration'); 'benchmark' is the only semi-natural user term. Natural phrases a user would actually say ('run evals', 'test the plugin', 'check skill injection') are missing, matching the anchor 'One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The benchmark/stress-test framing is a recognizable niche, but the broad feature inventory ('Workflow SDK, AI Gateway, MCP, Chat SDK, Queues, Flags, Sandbox') reads like the description of skills for building on those features, creating real overlap risk with Vercel development skills. 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' is the best fit.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

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

vercel/vercel-plugin

Path

.claude/skills/benchmark-agents/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.