CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tessl-labs/api-documentation

API documentation with OpenAPI/Swagger — endpoint descriptions, request/response

66

1.06x
Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

1.06x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Discovery

32%

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 identifies a clear domain (REST API documentation) and mentions relevant capabilities, but suffers from lacking explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') which is critical for skill selection. The description reads more like a topic summary than actionable selection criteria, and would benefit from natural user trigger terms and clearer scope boundaries.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios like 'Use when documenting REST APIs, creating OpenAPI/Swagger specs, or when the user asks about API documentation best practices'

Include common user terms and file extensions: 'Swagger', 'OpenAPI', 'API docs', '.yaml', '.json' schema files

List more specific concrete actions: 'generate OpenAPI specifications', 'create example request/response payloads', 'document authentication flows'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (API documentation) and mentions some actions (documenting endpoints with schemas, error responses, interactive docs), but lacks comprehensive concrete actions like 'generate OpenAPI specs' or 'create example requests'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2, but the 'when' is entirely absent, warranting a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant terms like 'REST API', 'endpoint', 'request/response schemas', 'error responses', and 'interactive docs', but misses common variations users might say like 'Swagger', 'OpenAPI', 'API docs', or 'document my API'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Focuses on REST API documentation specifically which provides some distinction, but could overlap with general documentation skills or API development skills without clearer boundaries.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Implementation

64%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a solid API documentation skill with excellent actionability through concrete code examples and clear WRONG/RIGHT patterns. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in the examples section and lack of explicit verification workflows for ensuring documentation completeness. The framework-specific guidance is well-targeted and practical.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step like 'After adding documentation, visit /docs and confirm all endpoints appear with complete request/response schemas'

Consider moving the extensive WRONG/RIGHT examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file and keeping only one representative example inline

Tighten the WRONG examples - they don't need to be shown if the RIGHT pattern is clear enough

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is mostly efficient but includes some redundancy in the examples (showing WRONG/RIGHT pairs that could be more compact). The framework-specific guidance is appropriately dense, but the examples section is somewhat verbose.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable code examples for FastAPI with complete Pydantic models, specific decorator parameters, and concrete documentation patterns. The WRONG/RIGHT comparisons give copy-paste ready templates for multiple scenarios.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The checklist provides a clear sequence of what to document, but there's no explicit validation workflow for verifying documentation completeness. For a documentation skill, a verification step like 'check /docs endpoint renders correctly' would strengthen this.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but the extensive WRONG/RIGHT examples could be split into a separate EXAMPLES.md file. The verifier reference at the end is good, but the main content is somewhat monolithic.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents