CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

75

1.64x
Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

1.64x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 delivers concrete, mostly executable code covering the full CQRS surface, but it is a monolithic single-file skill: concept explanations duplicate what Claude already knows, templates are inlined rather than split into reference files, and there is no sequenced implementation workflow with validation checkpoints despite database/event-store operations. Actionability is its strength; structure and workflow guidance are its weaknesses.

Suggestions

Split the five code templates into separate reference files (e.g., references/command-infra.md, references/read-model-sync.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

Add an explicit ordered implementation workflow (define commands/handlers → wire buses → expose endpoints → sync read models → handle consistency) with validation checkpoints, especially a validate-and-retry loop for event-store and read-database operations.

Remove the "Core Concepts" section (architecture diagram and component table) and the "When to Use" list, which restate CQRS basics Claude already knows and duplicate the frontmatter description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The "Core Concepts" section (ASCII architecture diagram plus a component table defining command/query/event) explains CQRS basics Claude already knows, and "When to Use This Skill" duplicates the description. The bulk is dense code rather than padded prose, so the body is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary explanation that could be trimmed — not noticeably verbose enough for a 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Five substantial Python templates give concrete, mostly executable guidance. However, there are gaps: Template 1 depends on an undefined `Order` aggregate, Template 2 uses `Dict`, `Type`, `Any`, and `datetime` without importing them, and Templates 4-5 reference undefined `Projection`, `logger`, `asyncio`, and `time` — concrete code with minor gaps, not copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The templates are loosely ordered (command infra, query infra, app wiring, read-model sync, consistency) and contain scattered error handling (projection try/except, read-your-writes timeout), but there is no explicit implementation sequence or validation checkpoints — notable because event-store and database operations are contexts where feedback loops matter. Sequence is implicit and checkpoints are missing, matching the 3 anchor rather than 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), so roughly 430 lines of code templates are inlined in a single monolithic SKILL.md with no external references at all. Content that clearly belongs in separate files (e.g., the templates) is inlined, matching the 2 anchor; it avoids a 1 only because section headers provide some structure.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 strong: it explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it with three natural trigger phrases. Its only weaknesses are modest action specificity (a single verb rather than a list of capabilities) and minor overlap with an event-sourcing skill's triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation" names the domain plus a single action, with no list of concrete sub-actions (e.g., define commands, build read models, wire buses). This matches the anchor for naming the domain with 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive coverage, so it is not a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

"Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures" explicitly states what the skill does, and "Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems" gives three concrete trigger phrases. Both what and when are explicit and concrete, matching the top anchor; the mild padding of "for scalable architectures" does not weaken either half.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"separating read and write models", "optimizing query performance", and "building event-sourced systems" are natural phrases users would say when needing this skill. A few natural terms are missing ("CQRS" itself, "event sourcing" as a standalone noun, "read model/write model"), keeping it below comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

CQRS is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but "building event-sourced systems" overlaps a potential dedicated event-sourcing skill, creating minor overlap risk with a closely related skill rather than minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.