putio/frontend-repos
Structure frontend repositories around a shared verify and delivery model. Use when standardizing package repos, app repos, or SDK repos across TypeScript, Swift, Kotlin, or similar ecosystems; setting up CI guardrails; defining a repo-local verify command; or enabling continuous publish or deploy flows on main after verify passes.
97
97%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
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 an excellent skill description that clearly defines a specific niche (put.io frontend repo structure and delivery contracts), provides comprehensive trigger terms across multiple ecosystems, and explicitly delineates both positive and negative selection criteria. The 'Skip' clause is a particularly strong addition that helps prevent false matches with generic CI/CD skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: standardizing package/app/SDK repos, defining verify commands for CI, aligning publish/deploy flows on main, and fixing repo shape that blocks repeatable release/deployment. These are concrete, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (structure put.io frontend-owned repositories around verify and delivery contracts) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with multiple trigger scenarios, plus a 'Skip' clause defining negative boundaries). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'package repos', 'app repos', 'SDK repos', 'TypeScript', 'Swift', 'Kotlin', 'verify command', 'CI', 'publish', 'deploy', 'main', 'repo structure', 'release', 'deployment'. Good coverage of terms across multiple ecosystems and workflows. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive: scoped specifically to put.io frontend-owned repositories, repo-local verify/delivery contracts, and specific ecosystems. The 'Skip generic CI/CD design that does not depend on repo structure' clause further sharpens boundaries and reduces conflict risk with general CI/CD 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 strong, well-crafted skill that provides clear, actionable guidance for standardizing frontend repository structure. The workflow is well-sequenced with proper validation gates, the inspection commands and examples are concrete and executable, and the content is concise without sacrificing clarity. The only minor weakness is that bundle files weren't provided to verify the progressive disclosure references, though the referencing pattern itself is well-designed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It avoids explaining what CI/CD is, what semantic-release does, or other concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a clear purpose—workflow steps, inspection commands, examples, and guardrails—with no padding or unnecessary exposition. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable inspection commands (rg, jq, find), copy-paste-ready package.json and CI YAML examples, and a specific summary template to fill out. The guidance is specific enough to act on immediately without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 10-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: step 7 requires running verify locally and fixing until it passes before proceeding, step 9 gates publish/deploy on stable verify, and step 10 adds a smoke check with gap recording. This includes proper feedback loops for error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references four bundled files (delivery-model.md, typescript.md, applications.md, env-setup.md) with clear navigation and conditional reading instructions. However, no bundle files were provided for evaluation, so we cannot confirm the references resolve correctly. The SKILL.md itself is well-structured but includes inline examples that could potentially live in reference files for cleaner separation. | 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents