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.
61
73%
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-static-prototype-teams/SKILL.mdQuality
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 a strong description that excels in completeness and distinctiveness. It provides extensive trigger phrases, clearly describes what the skill does (static prototype creation with iterative expert debate, scoring, and judge verdict), and explicitly differentiates from a related skill. The only minor weakness is that the description is quite verbose and dense, though this doesn't significantly harm its effectiveness for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: create a static component showcase, validate through iterative expert debate cycles, per-criterion scoring, independent judge verdict, versioned output, parallel debate or sequential simulation. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (create static component showcase, validate through expert debate cycles with scoring and judge verdict) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases listed, plus differentiation from the simpler /arn-spark-static-prototype skill). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Provides extensive explicit trigger phrases users would say ('static prototype teams', 'collaborative visual review', 'visual debate', 'review visuals as a team', etc.) covering many natural variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche (team-based debate review of static prototypes) and explicitly differentiates itself from the related /arn-spark-static-prototype skill, reducing conflict risk. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 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-defined phases, validation checkpoints, and error recovery paths for a genuinely complex multi-agent debate process. However, it is severely over-verbose — the content could likely be cut by 50-60% without losing actionable information. Many sections repeat the same information across workflow steps, the agent invocation guide, and error handling, and the skill over-explains conditional logic that Claude can handle from concise rules.
Suggestions
Reduce content by at least 50%: merge the Agent Invocation Guide and Error Handling sections into the workflow steps they relate to, eliminating extensive duplication of failure modes and fallback logic.
Move the detailed Phase 1-4 debate protocol, sequential invocation patterns, and divergence check logic into the referenced debate-protocol.md file instead of inlining them in the SKILL.md body.
Add concrete agent invocation examples showing actual Task tool syntax with parameters rather than describing what to pass in prose.
Condense the Step 1 (Agent Teams check) and Step 3 (configuration) sections — the multi-paragraph user-facing messages with exact wording can be summarized as templates or moved to a reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~500+ lines. Extensively explains Agent Teams setup, environment variables, sequential vs parallel execution modes, and numerous conditional branches that could be dramatically condensed. Many sections repeat information (e.g., Agent Teams failure handling appears in workflow, agent invocation guide, AND error handling). The skill explains concepts Claude can infer and includes excessive inline formatting guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a detailed workflow with specific file paths, agent names, and step sequences, but lacks executable code examples. Most guidance is procedural description rather than concrete commands or code snippets. The agent invocation instructions describe what to pass but never show actual invocation syntax. The Bash command for checking Agent Teams is one of the few concrete executable items. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is thoroughly sequenced with clear phases (Phase 1-4 within the debate review), explicit validation checkpoints (divergence check, file existence verification after Agent Teams Phase 1, judge review as independent gate), feedback loops (failing criteria feed back into next build cycle), and error recovery paths (Agent Teams failure detection with sequential fallback). Resume detection in Step 2 handles interrupted workflows. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references several external files (debate-protocol.md, expert-visual-review-template.md, debate-review-report-template.md, static-prototype-criteria.md, showcase-capture-guide.md) which is good progressive disclosure design, but no bundle files were provided to verify these exist. The SKILL.md itself is monolithic — the massive inline content (error handling, agent invocation guide, all conditional branches) could be split into reference files. The main body contains far too much detail that should be in supporting documents. | 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 (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 | 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.