emerge/architecture-patterns
Knowledge base for architecture patterns, trade-offs, and selection criteria. Activates when recommending or evaluating architecture patterns like microservices, monolith, serverless, event-driven, CQRS, or hybrid approaches.
88
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.12xAverage score across 5 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description with explicit trigger guidance and good keyword coverage for architecture-related queries. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat abstract ('knowledge base') rather than describing concrete actions like 'compares trade-offs', 'recommends patterns based on requirements', or 'evaluates scalability implications'.
Suggestions
Replace 'Knowledge base for' with specific actions like 'Compares and recommends architecture patterns, analyzes trade-offs, provides selection criteria based on requirements'
Add more concrete capabilities such as 'evaluates scalability, maintainability, and cost implications' to strengthen specificity
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (architecture patterns) and lists specific pattern types (microservices, monolith, serverless, event-driven, CQRS, hybrid), but doesn't describe concrete actions beyond 'recommending or evaluating' - lacks detail on what specific operations it performs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Knowledge base for architecture patterns, trade-offs, and selection criteria') and when ('Activates when recommending or evaluating architecture patterns like...') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'microservices', 'monolith', 'serverless', 'event-driven', 'CQRS', 'architecture patterns', 'trade-offs'. These are terms developers naturally use when discussing system design. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on architecture pattern selection and evaluation. The specific pattern names (microservices, CQRS, serverless) create distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with general coding or documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 skill excels at conciseness and provides valuable decision-making heuristics for architecture pattern selection. However, it reads more as a reference guide than an actionable skill—it tells Claude what to consider but not how to execute evaluations or present recommendations. The content would benefit from explicit output formats and links to deeper pattern-specific guidance.
Suggestions
Add an example evaluation output showing how to present an architecture recommendation to users (e.g., a structured format with pattern choice, rationale, risks, and prerequisites)
Include a decision workflow with explicit steps: 'Gather requirements → Evaluate team fit → Check operational constraints → Recommend pattern → Validate against red flags'
Consider splitting into SKILL.md (overview + selection framework) with references to pattern-specific files (MICROSERVICES.md, EVENT-DRIVEN.md) for deeper guidance
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Uses bullet points and tables effectively, no unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every line provides actionable decision criteria. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete decision criteria and clear signals for pattern selection, but lacks executable examples like code snippets, architecture diagrams, or specific implementation commands. Guidance is specific but descriptive rather than executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The selection framework provides a logical sequence (Team Fit → Operational Reality → Requirement Signals), but lacks explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for verifying pattern selection decisions. Migration paths are mentioned but not detailed. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but everything is inline in one file. For a knowledge base of this scope, references to detailed pattern guides (e.g., MICROSERVICES.md, EVENT-DRIVEN.md) would improve navigation and depth. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents