arn-spark-clickable-prototype-teams
This skill should be used when the user says "clickable prototype teams", "arn clickable prototype teams", "team clickable prototype", "debate clickable prototype", "collaborative interaction review", "clickable prototype with debate", "team-based interaction review", "interaction debate", "review interactions as a team", "interactive prototype teams", "team prototype review", or wants to create a clickable interactive prototype with linked screens and validate it through iterative expert debate cycles where product strategist and UX specialist discuss their scores and findings before producing a combined review, with Playwright-based interaction testing, per-criterion scoring, an independent judge verdict, and versioned output. Supports Agent Teams for parallel debate or sequential simulation as fallback. For standard lower-of-two-scores interaction review, use /arn-spark-clickable-prototype instead.
56
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/arn-spark/skills/arn-spark-clickable-prototype-teams/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%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 is thorough and highly specific about capabilities, clearly distinguishes itself from a related skill, and provides explicit trigger guidance. However, the long list of quoted trigger phrases feels mechanical and unnatural—more like a keyword index than a description that helps Claude understand the skill's purpose. The description would benefit from being more concise while retaining its strong specificity and completeness.
Suggestions
Replace the long enumerated list of trigger phrases with a more natural 'Use when...' clause that describes the user intent (e.g., 'Use when the user wants team-based or debate-driven review of a clickable prototype') rather than listing exact strings.
Trim redundant trigger phrase variations to reduce verbosity—many of the listed phrases are near-duplicates (e.g., 'clickable prototype teams' vs 'team clickable prototype' vs 'interactive prototype teams').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: create clickable interactive prototype with linked screens, validate through iterative expert debate cycles, Playwright-based interaction testing, per-criterion scoring, independent judge verdict, and versioned output. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (create clickable prototypes, validate through expert debate cycles, Playwright testing, scoring, judge verdict) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases listed, plus a differentiation clause pointing to an alternative skill for simpler use cases). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | While it exhaustively lists many exact trigger phrases ('clickable prototype teams', 'team-based interaction review', etc.), these feel like artificially constructed command phrases rather than natural keywords a user would organically say. Terms like 'Playwright', 'per-criterion scoring', and 'versioned output' are useful but the overall approach is more of a keyword dump than natural language coverage. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with its specific niche of team-based debate-driven prototype review. The explicit differentiation from '/arn-spark-clickable-prototype' for standard reviews further reduces conflict risk and helps Claude choose correctly between related skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
47%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has excellent workflow clarity with well-structured phases, validation checkpoints, and error recovery paths for a complex multi-agent debate process. However, it is extremely verbose — easily 3-4x longer than necessary — with verbatim conversation prompts, redundant error handling that restates workflow content, and procedural detail Claude could infer. The content would benefit enormously from aggressive condensation and moving reference material (error handling, agent invocation guide, prerequisite checks) into separate files.
Suggestions
Reduce verbosity by 50-70%: remove verbatim user-facing prompts (Claude can generate these), eliminate redundant explanations between workflow steps and the error handling/agent invocation sections, and trust Claude to handle obvious procedural details like 'create directory if needed'.
Move the Error Handling section and Agent Invocation Guide into separate reference files (e.g., references/error-handling.md, references/agent-guide.md) to reduce the main skill's token footprint and improve progressive disclosure.
Replace prose descriptions of agent invocations with concrete parameterized examples showing actual Task tool calls with specific parameter structures.
Consolidate the Prerequisites section — the repeated pattern of 'Read Arness section, check path, fallback to default' is stated 6+ times and could be a single lookup procedure referenced once.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~600+ lines. Massive amounts of procedural detail that Claude could infer, extensive repetition (e.g., error handling restates what's already in the workflow), explains obvious concepts like checking environment variables, and includes lengthy tables and option presentations that could be dramatically condensed. The skill over-specifies every conversational prompt verbatim. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete agent invocation patterns, file paths, and structured workflows, but lacks executable code examples. Most guidance is procedural prose rather than copy-paste commands. The agent invocation guide is helpful but the actual invocation syntax/parameters are described abstractly rather than shown concretely. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is thoroughly sequenced with clear phases (1-9), explicit validation checkpoints (divergence checks, file existence verification after Agent Teams Phase 1, threshold checks after debate synthesis), feedback loops (fix and re-validate cycles), and error recovery paths. The Phase 1→2→3→4 debate structure is well-defined with clear branching logic. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references several external files (debate-protocol.md, journey-template.md, expert-interaction-review-template.md, debate-review-report-template.md, showcase-capture-guide.md, clickable-prototype-criteria.md) which is good progressive disclosure design, but no bundle files were provided to verify these exist. The main SKILL.md itself is monolithic — the prerequisites section, error handling section, and agent invocation guide contain substantial content that could be split into reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (658 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 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.