ln-96-error-handling-engineer
Implements safe error boundaries, cancellation and user recovery contracts; not telemetry pipelines or durable retry machinery.
Install / Use
npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-96-error-handling-engineerInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
AutomationSupported Platforms
Our assessment of ln-96-error-handling-engineer
ln-96-error-handling-engineer scores 83/100 on our quality scale, 2304th of 2,864 Automation skills we index.
Its SKILL.md is 9.3 KB long, well organised into 10 sections and no code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.
It has 566 GitHub stars, a meaningful sign that others use it.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 42 days ago, so ln-96-error-handling-engineer is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
Safety scan
No issues foundOur scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands.
Automated pattern scan on 2026-10-28. It catches known dangerous patterns, not every risk — read a skill before letting an agent act on it.
ln-96-error-handling-engineer compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than ln-96-error-handling-engineer; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ln-96-error-handling-engineer (this skill)by levnikolaevich | 83 | 566 | 42d ago | SKILL.md |
| Agent-Reachby Panniantong | 100 | 105.0k | 3d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| taste-skillby Leonxlnx | 100 | 103.8k | today | CLAUDE.md |
| Scraplingby D4Vinci | 100 | 90.1k | 1d ago | MCP Server |
| rufloby ruvnet | 100 | 79.9k | today | MCP Server |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install ln-96-error-handling-engineer?
- Run
npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-96-error-handling-engineer. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does ln-96-error-handling-engineer work with?
- It is written for Zed, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is ln-96-error-handling-engineer safe to use?
- Our scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands. It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is ln-96-error-handling-engineer still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 42 days ago, so ln-96-error-handling-engineer is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: ln-96-error-handling-engineer description: "Implements safe error boundaries, cancellation and user recovery contracts; not telemetry pipelines or durable retry machinery."
Error Handling Engineer
Goal: Deliver approved error handling from failing operation to consumer feedback. Preserve transport/UX contracts unless change is authorized; do not redesign screens or introduce logging/recovery frameworks.
Execution contract: Track every checklist item as PENDING, PROVEN with observed outcome evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap. Reading, delegation, tool failure, zero exit status, and self-reported success are not proof. Reconcile after each section; before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve intent, scope, mode, and existing authorization. Complete authorized work before required external approval; ask only consequential unresolved choices. If nobody can answer, report the exact question and apply the skill's gap verdict without waiting or guessing. Cite any blocking instruction and unresolved boundary; never invent approval gates. Scale depth to material risk; preserve mandatory checks, dependencies, and safety order while choosing verification methods.
Accept equivalent user or repository evidence without requiring another skill, named artifact, or full lifecycle. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant versions, dirty changes, configuration, environment, and observation windows; invalidate only affected claims.
Choose the primary workflow by outcome and explicit selection. Consume neighboring contracts and valid evidence without duplicating ownership or restarting audits. Split distinct deliverables by scope, not mandatory skill invocation. Broad independent assessments use audit workflows; focused domain reviews remain read-only.
On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, state, and gaps. Return a compact continuation record for long work or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority.
Trace applicable requirements to their authoritative owner, planned or implemented change, acceptance evidence and status in the existing artifact or response; no new registry is required. Explicit constraints remain binding until an authorized deviation; risk determines priority, not permission to ignore them.
Investigate the causal flow beyond initially named files. Within implementation authority, include structural repair needed for the outcome; minimize total complexity and risk, not changed lines. This does not authorize unrelated cleanup or mutation during review.
Before retrieval, define the evidence question; read selectively without skipping applicable instructions. Use tools for mechanical processing; summarize bounded results, errors, coverage, and source paths, keeping full output outside context.
Before technical decisions, establish applicability and actual versions; verify version-dependent assumptions against official documentation or specifications. Search and read primary pages for current external recommendations; snippets are not evidence. Version-matched bundled documentation or valid prior evidence suffices. Record decision, version, source, and limitations. Mark unavailable evidence UNVERIFIED; block only essential dependent work. Prefer native mechanisms, justify added tools or abstractions with evidence, and reuse the existing rule owner.
Tool Routing
| Need | Preferred capability | Fallback | |---|---|---| | Actual stack and owners | Instructions, manifests, lockfiles, focused source/configuration reads and Git state | Supplied artifacts with explicit gaps; never infer versions from examples | | External semantics | Version-matched official documentation, specifications and maintained upstream source | Bundled official docs or valid prior evidence; mark unsupported conclusions UNVERIFIED | | Authorized changes | Project-native editor, configuration and maintained runtime tooling | Minimal scoped patch; BLOCKED when no safe mutation capability exists | | Observable verification | Existing checks and isolated runtime/consumer exercises | Static evidence labeled as such; BLOCKED when essential behavior cannot be established |
Boundaries
Errors own classification, safe translation and consumer recovery information. Observability owns diagnostic emission; mutation reliability owns effect resolution and replay. Transport failure after dispatch does not prove failure or rollback.
Consume the diagnostic contract's emission owner when handling errors; checking for duplicate logs does not authorize a competing event policy. If that owner is missing, expose the contract gap or resolve only an explicitly scoped diagnostic decision.
Review and explanation requests are read-only. Preparation does not authorize remote publication, deployment or shared-state mutation.
Checklist
1. Trace failure ownership
- [ ] Identify transport, domain, infrastructure, client and process boundaries; inspect existing public contracts.
- [ ] Classify expected rejection, unknown failure, cancellation, timeout and unknown outcome; preserve causes for controlled diagnostics.
- [ ] Find duplicate catches, swallowed exceptions and competing feedback owners; retain catches only for translation, cleanup or justified recovery.
2. Implement boundaries
- [ ] Use native exception/response mechanisms; consider Problem Details for HTTP without breaking clients, and native contracts for other transports.
- [ ] Expose stable safe codes/messages and allowed details; do not serialize arbitrary exceptions, secrets or internal topology.
- [ ] Keep transport mapping at the boundary, not infrastructure primitives; unknown failures produce safe generic responses.
- [ ] Prevent cleanup failure replacing the primary failure; preserve cancellation and runtime-appropriate fatal-process behavior.
- [ ] Handle streaming failures after headers in the stream owner; do not claim the original status can still be replaced.
- [ ] Validate bounded error payloads at clients; distinguish malformed responses, transport failures and confirmed rejection.
- [ ] Choose one visible feedback owner; preserve input, accessible error/status semantics and useful recovery without duplicate notifications.
- [ ] Distinguish initial-load failure from empty data and refresh failure from losing loaded data; notification failure must not undo confirmed mutation success.
- [ ] Offer retries only from the operation contract; resolve unknown effects before replay or compensation.
3. Exercise consumers
-
[ ] Inject expected and unexpected boundary failures; verify public shape/status, secret redaction and preserved diagnostic cause.
-
[ ] Exercise cancellation, disconnect-after-dispatch, cleanup failure and applicable streaming paths; assert safe outcomes.
-
[ ] Check clients for one useful feedback path and retained state; verify no duplicate log emission or incidental UX expansion.
-
[ ] Reconcile final changes with protected behavior, canonical owners and observed checks; update affected guidance within the authorized change and report remaining gaps.
Verdict
DELIVERED: the requested scoped change is retained with all required behavioral evidence.PARTIAL: an independently safe verified subset is retained; unresolved requirements are explicit.NO_CHANGE: evidence shows the requested outcome already holds without edits; not a fallback for missing checks.PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL: read-only assessment finds respectively no material issue, bounded nonblocking issues, or an evidenced required correction.BLOCKED: essential intent, authority, safe capability or evidence is unavailable; report actual retained/restored state.
Self-Check
- [ ] Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.
Output Contract
Report in the user's language, in this order; label all five fields and state each fact once. Use controlled plain language: one fact per sentence, usually under 20 words, active voice, and one term per concept, with no synonyms for verdicts, IDs, or states. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:
- Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
- Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
- Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
- Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
- Completion:
Checklist: X/Y complete;Incomplete: Noneor eachUNPROVENitem's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.
Skill-specific evidence: Failure taxonomy, owners, public compatibility, safe responses, feedback ownership, unknown outcome handling, executed failure cases and client coverage gaps.
Related Skills
Agent-Reach
105.0kGive your AI agent eyes to see the entire internet. Read & search Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, GitHub, Bilibili, XiaoHongShu — one CLI, zero API fees.
taste-skill
103.8kAgent skills that give coding agents taste: art direction, reference images and a browser check instead of generic AI pages
Scrapling
90.1k🕷️ The BEST Web Scraping framework that handles everything from a single request to a full-scale crawl! Don't be shy, join here: https://discord.gg/EMgGbDceNQ and follow here for daily tips and tricks: https://x.com/Scrapling_dev
ruflo
79.9k🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
