CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

application-architecture-standard

Defines structural rules for Laravel architecture, layering, and code organization

56

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/application-architecture-standard/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

80%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a concise, well-organized standards reference with mostly actionable rules and no token waste. Its main weakness is the absence of any sequenced workflow or validation checkpoint, which limits workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add a short 'How to apply' workflow (e.g., 1. Identify the layer, 2. Check service rules, 3. Verify dependencies) so the standards can be followed as a sequence.

Illustrate at least one rule with a minimal concrete example (e.g., a before/after of business logic moved from a controller into a service) to lift actionability from mostly-concrete to fully executable.

Tighten abstract principle statements like 'Strict separation of concerns' into checkable criteria (e.g., 'Controllers contain no Eloquent queries or business branches') to reduce residual ambiguity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and rule-dense—short bullets like 'Constructor injection only' and 'No service locators' with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching 'Lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.

5 / 5

Actionability

Most rules are concrete and directly actionable ('No view/UI concerns inside services', 'Constructor injection only'), though a few are abstract principle statements ('Strict separation of concerns', 'Refactoring must preserve behavior'), fitting 'Mostly executable guidance; minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The content is a categorized standards reference rather than a sequenced process, so there is no ordered workflow or validation checkpoints; structure is present but procedural clarity is missing.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

It is a short self-contained reference with no external files needed and clearly organized sections (Layering, Service, Dependency, Architecture Integrity), matching the simple-skill allowance that well-organized sections alone warrant a 5.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

48%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly identifies its Laravel-architecture niche and gives a concrete 'what', but the action verb is generic and it lacks any 'Use when' trigger guidance. It is moderately specific and mostly distinct but not comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing Laravel code structure, enforcing layering boundaries, or planning architectural refactors.'

Replace the generic verb 'Defines structural rules' with more concrete actions like 'Enforces layer boundaries, validates service responsibilities, and guides dependency injection in Laravel applications.'

Include natural synonyms a user might say, such as 'Laravel services', 'DTOs', 'dependency injection', or 'separation of concerns', to improve trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Defines structural rules for Laravel architecture, layering, and code organization' names the domain (Laravel, layering) but the action ('Defines structural rules') is generic, matching the score-2 anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'.

2 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear 'what' (structural rules for architecture/layering/organization) but entirely omits 'when', and per the guidelines a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes a few relevant natural terms ('Laravel architecture', 'layering', 'code organization') but lacks common variations/synonyms and any 'Use when' phrasing, fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Laravel-architecture framing is a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the generic 'structural rules' wording leaves minor overlap with adjacent standards skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
Bottelet/DaybydayCRM
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.