CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

proofreader-api

Implements and debugs browser Proofreader API integrations in JavaScript or TypeScript web apps. Use when adding Proofreader availability checks, monitored model downloads, proofread flows, correction metadata handling, or permissions-policy checks for built-in proofreading. Don't use for generic prompt engineering, server-side LLM SDKs, or cloud AI services.

72

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

A tightly written procedural skill: five sequenced steps with a dedicated validation phase, error-handling feedback loops, exact API/option/error names, and exemplary conditional progressive disclosure into real bundle files. The only imperfections are minor cross-section repetition of a few constraints and the absence of any inline code sample in the body itself.

Suggestions

Consolidate the secure-context/permissions-policy and user-activation-before-download constraints, each currently stated in 2-3 places across Steps 2-5 and Error Handling, into a single authoritative step to trim redundant sub-items.

Include one short inline guarded-create() snippet (or an explicit pointer to the exact section of assets/proofreader-session.template.ts) so the body alone demonstrates the wrapper pattern without requiring a file read for the common case.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, procedural, and contains zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line is Proofreader-specific guidance. However, some constraints are restated across sections (secure-context/permissions-policy appears in Steps 2, 5, and Error Handling; user-activation-before-download appears in Steps 3 and 4 and Error Handling), so a few sub-items could be trimmed. This places it at 4 (efficient with minor trimmable instances) rather than 5 (every token earns its place), and clearly above 3 (no unnecessary explanation present).

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete and executable throughout: an exact command ("node scripts/find-proofreader-targets.mjs ."), exact API surface ("availability()", "create()", "proofread()", "measureInputUsage()", "destroy()"), exact option names ("expectedInputLanguages", "includeCorrectionTypes", "correctionExplanationLanguage"), and exact exception types ("NotAllowedError", "NotSupportedError", "OperationError", "UnknownError"). It scores 4 rather than 5 because the body itself contains no inline code — executability of actual integration code depends on the bundled template and examples files, which is appropriate design but leaves minor gaps in the body alone.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with Step 5 devoted entirely to validation (re-run the inventory script, test with exact production options, verify cancellation and session destruction, confirm preview/origin-trial state before blaming app bugs, run build/typecheck/tests). The Error Handling section adds explicit feedback loops ("retry once only after confirming that device eligibility, storage, and browser flags still match") and stop-and-ask conditions. This matches the 5 anchor: explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and clear sequencing.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview with every detail file conditionally signaled one level deep: "Read references/examples.md when the feature needs session creation...", "Read references/compatibility.md when preview flags...", "Read references/troubleshooting.md when feature detection... fails", plus a template asset (assets/proofreader-session.template.ts) and script. All referenced paths exist in the bundle, and the only cross-link (troubleshooting.md → compatibility.md) stays within one level. This matches the 5 anchor for well-signaled, appropriately split content.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 exemplary: third-person, concrete, covers what/when/negative-triggers explicitly, and carves out a distinct niche with explicit disambiguation. The only gap is missing a few natural synonyms (spell check, grammar check) that users might say instead of "proofread".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Implements and debugs browser Proofreader API integrations in JavaScript or TypeScript web apps" plus a list of concrete actions ("availability checks, monitored model downloads, proofread flows, correction metadata handling, or permissions-policy checks") gives multiple specific, comprehensive actions in third person. It fits the 5 anchor better than 4 because coverage of the niche (implement, debug, and the five feature areas) is complete, with no generic filler.

5 / 5

Completeness

What is explicit ("Implements and debugs browser Proofreader API integrations in JavaScript or TypeScript web apps") and when is explicit with concrete triggers ("Use when adding Proofreader availability checks, monitored model downloads, proofread flows...") plus negative triggers ("Don't use for generic prompt engineering, server-side LLM SDKs, or cloud AI services"). Both what and when are concretely answered, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present ("Proofreader API", "proofread flows", "model downloads", "corrections", "permissions-policy", "JavaScript or TypeScript web apps"), but common user synonyms like "spell check", "grammar check", or "autocorrect" are absent. This matches the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5, which requires synonyms/extensions-level coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow (built-in browser Proofreader API) with distinct triggers, and the "Don't use for generic prompt engineering, server-side LLM SDKs, or cloud AI services" clause actively prevents overlap with adjacent skills. Minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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
webmaxru/web-ai-agent-skills
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.