peteski22/typescript-style
Validate TypeScript/React code against style and architectural conventions
49
62%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear technology stack (TypeScript/React) but lacks the specificity and completeness needed for effective skill selection. It fails to include explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and doesn't enumerate the specific validation actions performed, making it difficult for Claude to confidently select this skill over similar code quality tools.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'validate code', 'check conventions', 'code review', 'lint', 'style check', or 'architectural review'
List specific concrete actions such as 'checks import ordering, enforces naming conventions, validates component structure, verifies hook usage patterns'
Include common user phrases like 'review my React code', 'check TypeScript style', or 'does this follow best practices'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (TypeScript/React) and a general action (validate code against conventions), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check import ordering', 'enforce naming conventions', or 'verify component structure'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2, but the 'what' is also weak, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'TypeScript', 'React', 'validate', 'style', and 'conventions', but misses common variations users might say like 'lint', 'code review', 'check my code', 'formatting', or 'best practices'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | TypeScript/React narrows the scope somewhat, but 'style and architectural conventions' is broad enough to potentially overlap with general linting skills, code review skills, or other TypeScript-specific tools. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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 validation skill with excellent actionability - clear git commands, specific rules with severity levels, and a complete output schema. The workflow is logical and includes proper edge case handling. Main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in scope declarations and a monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed rules into separate reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the scope declaration and assumptions sections to reduce redundancy - both explain what the validator does/doesn't do
Consider moving the detailed HARD RULES, STRONG CONVENTIONS, and WARNINGS sections to a separate RULES.md file, keeping only a summary in the main skill
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated emphasis on what NOT to do, multiple statements about not inventing rules). The scope declarations and assumptions sections could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable git commands for input, concrete rule definitions with specific examples (e.g., 'no prop drilling beyond 2 levels'), and a complete JSON output schema that is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequential workflow: get files via git commands (with fallback order), read files, evaluate rules in order, categorize findings, output JSON. Includes explicit pass/fail criteria and handles edge cases like >50 files. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections (HARD RULES, STRONG CONVENTIONS, WARNINGS), but the entire validator is monolithic. The rules sections could potentially be split into separate reference files, and the normative references at the end are minimal. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents