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

100%

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 strong skill description that clearly defines its niche at the intersection of Ruby on Rails and Domain-Driven Design. It opens with an explicit 'Use when' clause listing specific trigger scenarios, follows with concrete actions the skill performs, and uses domain-appropriate terminology that users would naturally employ. The description is concise yet comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Identifies misplaced domain models', 'detects cross-context coupling', 'names ownership conflicts', 'recommends the smallest credible boundary improvement'. Also mentions specific sub-capabilities like 'context mapping and leakage detection'.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (identifies misplaced domain models, detects cross-context coupling, names ownership conflicts, recommends boundary improvements) and 'when' (opens with 'Use when reviewing a Ruby on Rails app for Domain-Driven Design boundaries, bounded contexts, language leakage, cross-context orchestration, or unclear ownership').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural keywords a user would say: 'Ruby on Rails', 'Domain-Driven Design', 'bounded contexts', 'language leakage', 'cross-context', 'ownership', 'domain models', 'coupling'. These are terms a developer working in DDD with Rails would naturally use.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive niche: DDD boundary review specifically for Ruby on Rails apps. The combination of Rails + DDD + bounded contexts + ownership conflicts is very specific and unlikely to conflict with general code review or architecture skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Implementation

92%

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-crafted skill that is concise, actionable, and clearly structured for its purpose. The review workflow is logically sequenced with appropriate guardrails (HARD-GATE), and the ripgrep commands provide concrete detection techniques. The main weakness is the reference to EXAMPLES.md which doesn't exist in the bundle, undermining the progressive disclosure strategy.

Suggestions

Create the referenced EXAMPLES.md file with the promised worked leakage example, sample finding block, and pitfalls to fulfill the progressive disclosure reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is lean and efficient. It avoids explaining what DDD is, what bounded contexts are conceptually, or how Rails works. Every section earns its place with actionable tables, constraints, and steps. No padding or unnecessary context.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete ripgrep commands for detecting leakage, a clear review order with specific steps, a structured output format with required fields per finding, and explicit hard-gate constraints. The guidance is specific and directly executable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step review order is clearly sequenced and logically progresses from mapping to proposing improvements. The HARD-GATE section acts as a validation checkpoint preventing premature structural changes. The output style section provides a clear template for findings. The 'smallest credible improvement' principle serves as a built-in constraint against over-engineering.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References EXAMPLES.md for worked examples which is good progressive disclosure, but the bundle confirms no such file exists. The integration table provides clear chaining guidance. However, the missing EXAMPLES.md file means the reference is broken, and there's no way to verify the referenced content supports the skill.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

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