arn-infra-review-change
This skill should be used when the user says "review infra change", "infrastructure review", "review infrastructure", "infra quality review", "arn infra review", "check infra change", "review infrastructure change", "infra change review", "quality check infrastructure", "arn-infra-review-change", "post-deployment review", or wants to perform a comprehensive post-execution quality review of completed infrastructure changes, producing a structured review report with a PASS/WARN/NEEDS_FIXES verdict.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%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 trigger term coverage and completeness, providing an extensive list of invocation phrases and clearly stating both what the skill does and when to use it. Its main weakness is that the 'what it does' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed during the review (e.g., checking resource configurations, validating security policies, verifying naming conventions). The heavy reliance on listing trigger phrases makes it functional but somewhat front-loaded.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions describing what the review entails, e.g., 'Checks resource configurations, validates security policies, verifies naming conventions, and reviews IAM permissions' to improve specificity.
Restructure to lead with concrete capabilities first, then follow with the 'Use when...' clause containing trigger terms, rather than leading with the trigger phrase list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'comprehensive post-execution quality review of completed infrastructure changes' and 'structured review report with a PASS/WARN/NEEDS_FIXES verdict,' which names the domain and some actions but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions (e.g., what exactly is checked, what the report contains beyond the verdict). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description explicitly answers both 'what' (performs a comprehensive post-execution quality review of completed infrastructure changes, producing a structured review report with a PASS/WARN/NEEDS_FIXES verdict) and 'when' (with a detailed list of trigger phrases and the condition 'wants to perform a comprehensive post-execution quality review'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The description includes an extensive list of natural trigger phrases users would say, such as 'review infra change', 'infrastructure review', 'check infra change', 'post-deployment review', and several variations. This provides excellent coverage of how users would naturally invoke this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is highly specific to post-execution infrastructure change quality reviews with a particular verdict format (PASS/WARN/NEEDS_FIXES). The numerous specific trigger phrases like 'arn infra review' and 'arn-infra-review-change' make it very unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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, highly actionable skill for a complex infrastructure review workflow. Its greatest strengths are the clear step-by-step sequencing with validation checkpoints, concrete file paths and glob patterns, and thorough error handling with recovery paths. The main weakness is its length — while most content is justified by the complexity of the task, some sections (particularly the experience-level presentation templates) could be extracted to reference files to improve token efficiency.
Suggestions
Consider extracting the experience-level presentation templates (Expert/Intermediate/Beginner formats in Step 4) into a reference file to reduce the main skill's token footprint.
The error handling section partially duplicates guidance already present in the workflow steps (e.g., 'no phase reports found' is already handled in the prerequisites). Consolidate to avoid redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long but most content is necessary for the complex multi-step workflow. Some sections could be tightened — e.g., the beginner/intermediate/expert presentation templates are verbose, and the error handling section restates things already implied by the workflow. However, it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete glob patterns, specific file paths, exact JSON field names to check, structured agent invocation payloads, and precise output formats for each experience level. The instructions are specific enough to be directly executable without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced across 5 steps with explicit validation checkpoints — confirming project eligibility, presenting review scope and asking for confirmation before proceeding, handling incomplete phases with warnings, and providing clear verdict-based branching with specific next steps and remediation actions. Error handling covers failure modes with recovery paths. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (experience-derivation.md, ensure-config.md, report template JSON) which is good progressive disclosure, but no bundle files were provided to verify these references exist. The main SKILL.md itself is quite long and some content (like the detailed presentation formats for each experience level) could potentially be split into reference files. The structure is reasonable but the monolithic length works against it. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
b9084b6
- 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.