CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

igmarin/rails-agent-skills

Curated library of AI agent skills for Ruby on Rails development. Covers code review, architecture, security, testing (RSpec), engines, service objects, DDD patterns, and workflow automation.

95

2.21x
Quality

97%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

91%

2.21x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Discovery

67%

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 strong on specificity and distinctiveness, clearly carving out a niche for Rails code quality with well-enumerated concerns. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which limits its completeness score and could reduce Claude's ability to reliably select it. Adding natural trigger terms that users would actually say (e.g., 'code review', 'clean code', 'refactor') would improve discoverability.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring Rails application code, or when the user asks about Rails best practices or code quality.'

Include more natural user-facing trigger terms like 'code review', 'refactor', 'Ruby on Rails', 'best practices', 'clean code' to improve matching against typical user requests.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete areas: design principles (DRY, YAGNI, PORO, CoC, KISS), per-path rules for models/services/workers/controllers, structured logging, comment discipline, and linter deferral. These are concrete, actionable domains.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers 'what does this do' (a daily checklist covering design principles, per-path rules, logging, comments), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The 'when' is only implied by the phrase 'daily checklist for writing clean Rails code'. Per the rubric, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant terms like 'Rails', 'models', 'services', 'workers', 'controllers', 'DRY', 'YAGNI', but misses common natural user phrases like 'code review', 'best practices', 'refactor', or 'Ruby on Rails'. The acronyms are useful but somewhat jargon-heavy.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive — the combination of Rails-specific code quality checklist with named design principles, per-path rules for specific Rails directories, and linter deferral creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Implementation

72%

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

A well-structured Rails conventions checklist that excels at actionability through concrete code examples and progressive disclosure through clear skill chaining. The per-area path pattern table is a strong organizational choice. Minor weaknesses include some redundancy between the body guidance and the Common Mistakes table, and the workflow dimension could benefit from explicit validation steps for the architectural guidance it provides.

Suggestions

Remove or consolidate the Common Mistakes table entries that simply restate guidance already given in the body (logging, comments, let_it_be) to reduce redundancy and improve conciseness.

For the linter detection workflow, add a brief validation checkpoint — e.g., 'If no linter config is found, note this to the user rather than defaulting to any tool.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Generally efficient with good use of tables, but some sections are slightly verbose — e.g., the linter detection instructions explain things Claude would naturally do, and the 'Common Mistakes' table partially restates guidance already given in the body (logging, comments, let_it_be). The integration table is useful but adds tokens for cross-references that could be briefer.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable Ruby code examples for both logging and comments (good vs bad patterns), specific commands for linter detection and execution, and precise per-area guidance with path patterns. The structured logging example is copy-paste ready and the RSpec guidance is specific enough to act on immediately.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The linter detection workflow (detect → run) is clear, and the tests gate sequence is explicitly stated. However, the overall skill is more of a reference checklist than a multi-step workflow, and the 'Apply by area' section lacks validation checkpoints — e.g., no explicit step to verify eager loading actually reduced queries, or to confirm structured logging works with the team's log aggregator.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Excellent use of one-level-deep references to companion skills (rails-stack-conventions, ruby-service-objects, rails-background-jobs, etc.) with clear 'when to chain' guidance in the Integration table. The main content stays at overview/checklist level and defers depth appropriately. No nested reference chains.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents