CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

arn-spark-static-prototype-teams

This skill should be used when the user says "static prototype teams", "arn static prototype teams", "team static prototype", "debate static prototype", "collaborative visual review", "static prototype with debate", "team-based visual review", "visual debate", "review visuals as a team", or wants to create a static component showcase 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 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 visual review, use /arn-spark-static-prototype instead.

71

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable with a clearly sequenced, validation-rich workflow and real, well-signaled reference files. Its weakness is token efficiency: significant content is duplicated across the workflow, invocation table, and error-handling sections, and protocol detail that could live in references is kept inline.

Suggestions

Collapse the Agent Invocation Guide table and Error Handling list into the workflow steps (or move them to a reference file) to remove the substantial duplication of the same scenarios across three sections.

Move the Phase 1–4 debate mechanics and divergence logic into references/debate-protocol.md (already present) and summarize the protocol inline, keeping SKILL.md as an overview.

Tighten the sequential-debate section by removing the in-prose self-correction ('Actually, the full sequential pattern runs as...') and stating the 3-invocation pattern once, definitively.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats substantial material across the Workflow, Agent Invocation Guide table, and Error Handling sections, and contains loose mid-prose self-correction ('Actually, the full sequential pattern runs as...'); it could be tightened, so it is not the lean level-3 but is above the padded level-1.

2 / 3

Actionability

Gives fully concrete, executable guidance throughout — named agents, exact Bash commands, file paths to read/write, full AskUserQuestion prompts, and model dispatch conventions — so Claude knows exactly what to do; not the incomplete/pseudocode level-2.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced Steps 1–9 with numbered sub-phases and explicit validation checkpoints (verify both Agent Teams review files exist, divergence check, judge pass/fail gate, cycle-budget tracking) plus build→review→fix feedback loops, matching the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References to bundle files are real, one level deep, and clearly signaled, but large blocks of protocol logic (divergence handling, Phase 1–4 mechanics) and the duplicated Agent Invocation Guide and Error Handling tables sit inline rather than in separate files, matching the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor; not the monolithic level-1 nor the well-split level-3.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 strong: it states concrete capabilities, lists numerous natural trigger terms, covers both what and when explicitly, and carves out a distinct niche with a clear redirect to the simpler alternative. It uses third-person voice and avoids padding.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'create a static component showcase', 'validate it through iterative expert debate cycles', 'per-criterion scoring', 'an independent judge verdict, and versioned output' — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions; not the level below which only names a domain and some actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (create and validate a showcase through debate) and 'when' ('should be used when the user says ... or wants to ...'), matching the anchor that clearly answers both with explicit triggers rather than the level where 'when' is only implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Provides good coverage of natural phrases a user would actually say ('static prototype teams', 'visual debate', 'collaborative visual review', 'review visuals as a team'), matching the good-coverage anchor rather than the partial-coverage anchor that misses common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (team-based debate visual review) with distinct triggers and an explicit redirect to the non-debate variant, making it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill; not the level where it could overlap with similar skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (534 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
AppsVortex/arness
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.