SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB api-docs-writer

Write clear, developer-facing API documentation. Use when asked to document an API endpoint, write API reference docs, create a developer guide, or turn a raw spec/Postman collection into documentation. Produces endpoint documentation with descriptions, parameters, request/response examples, and error codes.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills Agent Skills author: mohitagw15856 MIT 4 files body ≈ 1 793 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Write clear, developer-facing API documentation.

As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

IntegrationSoftware developmentWriting and documentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
66/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
When it triggers w 12
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: api-docs-writer (mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills)

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 145): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 66/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 26 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1793 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 309: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 13 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.