arn-assessing
This skill should be used when the user says "assessing", "arness assessing", "assess", "assess codebase", "technical review", "codebase assessment", "find improvements", "what should I improve", "tech debt review", "pattern compliance check", "codebase health check", "improvement plan", "review my codebase", "what needs fixing", "code quality check", "audit my code", "run an assessment", "arn-assessing", or wants a comprehensive technical assessment of the codebase against stored patterns followed by prioritized improvement execution. Chains to arn-implementing if improvements are identified.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%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 excels at providing extensive trigger terms and clearly answering both 'what' and 'when,' making it strong on completeness and trigger coverage. However, it is somewhat weak on specificity—it doesn't detail the concrete actions performed during the assessment (e.g., what patterns are checked, what outputs are generated). The heavy reliance on a long trigger list without deeper explanation of capabilities makes it read more like a keyword index than a capability description.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes code structure, checks adherence to stored architectural patterns, identifies tech debt, and generates a prioritized improvement plan.'
Reduce the trigger term list to the most distinctive terms and move the capability explanation to the front of the description to improve readability and specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'comprehensive technical assessment of the codebase against stored patterns' and 'prioritized improvement execution,' which names the domain and some actions, but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like what the assessment checks, what outputs it produces, or what 'stored patterns' means. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description explicitly answers both 'what' (comprehensive technical assessment against stored patterns followed by prioritized improvement execution, chaining to arn-implementing) and 'when' (with a detailed list of trigger phrases and the general condition of wanting a codebase assessment). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The description includes an extensive list of natural trigger terms users would say: 'assess codebase', 'tech debt review', 'code quality check', 'audit my code', 'what needs fixing', 'codebase health check', 'find improvements', etc. These cover many natural variations a user might use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While the trigger terms are numerous, terms like 'code quality check', 'audit my code', and 'what needs fixing' could overlap with general code review or linting skills. The mention of 'stored patterns' and chaining to 'arn-implementing' adds some distinctiveness, but the broad scope of triggers increases conflict risk. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 orchestration skill with clear workflow sequencing, explicit validation gates, and appropriate delegation to sub-skills. The actionability and workflow clarity are strong, with concrete paths, specific messages, and clear branching logic. Minor verbosity in the introductory meta-commentary could be trimmed, but overall the skill is effective and well-organized.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation. The paragraph about being a 'medium orchestration wrapper' and the note about not duplicating logic are meta-commentary that could be trimmed. The progress indicator ASCII art adds some value but is borderline. Overall reasonably lean for an orchestration skill. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, specific guidance at every step: exact file paths to check, exact skill invocations to make, specific user-facing messages to display, and clear branching logic with named tools (AskUserQuestion). Each step has unambiguous instructions for what Claude should do. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced (Step 0 → Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3) with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 0 ensures config exists, Step 1 validates pattern docs before proceeding with clear blocking behavior if missing, and Step 3 provides a clean handoff. Error handling section covers failure modes with specific recovery actions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill appropriately delegates to referenced skills (arn-code-ensure-config, arn-code-assess, arn-implementing) rather than inlining their logic. References are one level deep and clearly signaled with exact paths. The skill stays at the orchestration level and points to the right places for detailed work. | 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.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- AppsVortex/arness
- Commit
1fe948f
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.