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, well-crafted description that clearly identifies its niche (Rails engine/Railtie review), lists specific concrete review areas, and opens with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause. The domain-specific terminology serves as excellent natural trigger terms that a Rails developer would use, and the description is concise without being vague.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: reviewing namespace boundaries, host-app integration, safe initialization, migrations, generators, and dummy app test coverage. Also specifies it prioritizes architectural risks.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (covers namespace boundaries, host-app integration, safe initialization, migrations, generators, dummy app test coverage, prioritizes architectural risks) and 'when' (explicitly starts with 'Use when reviewing a Rails engine, mountable engine, or Railtie').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'Rails engine', 'mountable engine', 'Railtie', 'migrations', 'generators', 'dummy app', 'namespace boundaries', 'host-app integration'. These are terms a developer would naturally use when seeking a review of a Rails engine.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive — targets specifically Rails engines, mountable engines, and Railties, which is a clear niche. Unlikely to conflict with general Rails review skills or other code review skills due to the specific engine/Railtie focus.

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 high-quality skill that provides a clear, actionable review workflow for Rails engines with excellent conciseness and strong validation checkpoints. The grep commands, code examples, and severity-based output format make it immediately usable. The only notable weakness is that referenced files (FINDINGS.md, assets/examples.md) cannot be verified since no bundle files were provided, slightly undermining the progressive disclosure structure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is lean and efficient. It assumes Claude knows what Rails engines, Railties, and namespaces are without explaining them. Every section serves a clear purpose—tables compress information well, grep commands are specific, and there's no padding or unnecessary context.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides specific, executable grep commands for each review step, concrete Ruby code examples showing bad vs. good patterns, and a clear checklist. The fix suggestions are specific (e.g., introduce `MyEngine.config.user_finder`), making guidance copy-paste ready and immediately usable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step review order is clearly sequenced from identification through summary. Step 7 is an explicit validation checkpoint with a checklist ensuring all review areas are addressed before writing findings, and it includes handling for incomplete information ('open assumptions'). This is a well-structured feedback loop for a review workflow.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References FINDINGS.md for severity details and assets/examples.md for additional examples, which is good progressive disclosure. However, the bundle has no files provided, so we can't verify these references exist. The Integration table references other skills but those are external. The main content is well-structured but the referenced files (FINDINGS.md, assets/examples.md) cannot be confirmed, and some content like the severity tiers could benefit from being more clearly split.

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