cqrs-implementation

Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures. Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems.

1.64x

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

1.64x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./tests/ext_conformance/artifacts/agents-wshobson/backend-development/skills/cqrs-implementation/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is cqrs-implementation in wshobson/agents

Quality

Content

57%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 content is highly actionable with five executable templates but is verbose for a SKILL.md, re-explains CQRS basics, and presents code as templates rather than a sequenced, validated workflow. Splitting the templates into reference files and trimming conceptual exposition would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Move the five code templates into separate reference files (e.g. references/templates/) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with one-level-deep links, reducing inlined bulk and improving progressive_disclosure.

Trim the ASCII architecture diagram and the components table, which re-explain CQRS concepts Claude already knows, to improve conciseness.

Add an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints (validate command, persist events, verify projection, rebuild/read-your-writes consistency check) so destructive and batch operations get a clear validate→fix→retry loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body spends tokens re-explaining CQRS basics Claude already knows (an ASCII architecture diagram, a components table defining 'Command'/'Query'/'Event') alongside five long code templates, so it is mostly efficient but carries unnecessary conceptual padding.	3 / 5
Actionability	Five concrete, copy-paste-ready Python templates (command/query buses, FastAPI app, read-model sync, eventual consistency handler) cover the common cases, with only minor gaps such as undefined `Order`, `Projection`, and missing imports.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The skill presents templates rather than a sequenced workflow, and lacks explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoints; because event sourcing and read-model rebuilds are batch/destructive operations, the rubric caps this dimension at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist, so everything (five full templates, the FastAPI app, architecture diagram) is inlined in a single SKILL.md with section headers but no one-level-deep references to split the bulk out.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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 is concise, third-person, and clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it with concrete, distinctive triggers. It is near-exemplary, with only minor room for additional natural synonyms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'separating read and write models', 'optimizing query performance', 'building event-sourced systems' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation') and 'when' ('Use when separating... optimizing... or building...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keywords like 'read and write models' and 'query performance' that users would say, but missing common synonyms or variations that would round out coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	CQRS is a clear niche with distinct triggers (event sourcing, read/write model separation) that minimizes overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (555 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: Dicklesworthstone/pi_agent_rust
Path: tests/ext_conformance/artifacts/agents-wshobson/backend-development/skills/cqrs-implementation/SKILL.md
Commit: 6453c0b

Reviewed: about 10 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.