CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

igmarin/rails-agent-skills

Curated library of 42 public AI agent skills for Ruby on Rails development, plus 5 callable workflow skills. Organized by category: planning, testing, code-quality, ddd, engines, infrastructure, api, patterns, context, orchestration, and workflows. Covers code review, architecture, security, testing (RSpec), engines, service objects, DDD patterns, and TDD automation.

75

Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Discovery

0%

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 description is too vague and generic to serve as an effective skill selector. It lacks specific actions, natural trigger terms, explicit 'when to use' guidance, and any distinguishing characteristics that would differentiate it from other development-related skills. It reads more like a general development philosophy than a skill description.

Suggestions

Specify the domain and concrete actions, e.g., 'Implements code changes including writing/modifying source code, adding unit and integration tests, and running test suites to verify correctness.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to implement a feature, fix a bug, make a code change, or add tests to existing code.'

Differentiate from other potential skills by clarifying scope, e.g., 'Handles single, focused code changes rather than large refactors or multi-file architectural changes.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague language like 'one task or scoped change' and 'make the change' without specifying what kind of tasks, changes, or domain. 'Add valuable tests' and 'verify it works' are generic software development actions without concrete specifics.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description weakly addresses 'what' (implement a change, add tests, verify) but has no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. There is no 'Use when...' or equivalent, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, but the 'what' is also too vague to merit a 2.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The description lacks natural keywords a user would say. Terms like 'scoped change', 'valuable tests', and 'verify it works' are not how users typically phrase requests. Missing terms like 'implement feature', 'fix bug', 'write code', 'unit test', etc.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

This description is extremely generic and could apply to virtually any coding or development skill. 'Implement one task or scoped change' could conflict with any skill related to coding, testing, debugging, refactoring, or feature development.

1 / 3

Total

4

/

12

Passed

Implementation

85%

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

This is a well-structured, concise instruction-only skill that clearly defines a focused workflow for implementing a single scoped change. Its strengths are excellent organization, lean writing, and clear validation checkpoints. Its main weakness is that actionability stays at the principle level without concrete examples of commands or verification steps, though this is partially justified by the skill's general-purpose nature.

Suggestions

Consider adding one concrete example showing what a 'small runnable step' looks like in practice (e.g., a brief scenario of implementing a feature, running tests, then proceeding).

Add a specific example of 'task-specific verification' to make the verification section more actionable (e.g., 'curl the endpoint', 'run a specific test file', etc.).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is lean and efficient. Every section serves a purpose, there's no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and no padding or unnecessary context. The rules and verification checklist are tightly written.

3 / 3

Actionability

The guidance is clear and specific in terms of process and rules, but it remains at the level of principles and checklists rather than concrete, executable commands or code examples. For instance, 'Run the strongest project checks available' is directional but not copy-paste ready. However, as an instruction-only skill for a general workflow, the absence of code is partially justified.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced with numbered steps, includes explicit validation checkpoints (step 5: verify each step, step 7: run checks), and the Verification section acts as a completion checklist. The feedback loop of 'stop and clarify or break it down' for vague scope is well-articulated. The instruction to verify each small step before continuing is an explicit feedback loop.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a simple, focused skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (When to use, Process, Verification, Rules). No monolithic walls of text, and the structure supports easy scanning and discovery.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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