defi-protocol-templates
Implement DeFi protocols with production-ready templates for staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems. Use when building decentralized finance applications or smart contract protocols.
75
61%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.26xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./tests/ext_conformance/artifacts/agents-wshobson/blockchain-web3/skills/defi-protocol-templates/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%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 solid description that clearly identifies its niche in DeFi protocol development with specific protocol types listed and an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause. Its main weakness is that the trigger terms, while good, could be expanded to cover more natural user language variations like 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', 'token swap', or 'Solidity'.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations users might say: 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', 'token swap', 'DEX', 'DAO voting', 'Solidity', 'EVM'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions/domains: staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems, plus mentions production-ready templates. These are concrete, identifiable protocol types. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (implement DeFi protocols with templates for staking, AMMs, governance, lending) and 'when' (use when building decentralized finance applications or smart contract protocols) with an explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good terms like 'DeFi', 'staking', 'AMMs', 'governance', 'lending', and 'smart contract protocols', but misses common variations users might say such as 'yield farming', 'liquidity pool', 'token swap', 'DAO', 'Solidity', 'EVM', or specific chain names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | DeFi protocols, staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems form a very clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general smart contract skills or other non-DeFi blockchain skills. The specificity of the domain makes it highly distinguishable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill dumps four complete Solidity contracts inline without deployment workflows, testing instructions, or validation steps—critical omissions for DeFi protocols handling real funds. While the code itself is executable and well-structured, the skill would be far more effective as a concise overview of key patterns and security considerations with contracts moved to referenced asset files, plus concrete Hardhat/Foundry deployment and testing workflows.
Suggestions
Move full contract implementations to the referenced asset files (assets/staking-contract.sol, etc.) and keep only key code snippets or pattern highlights inline in SKILL.md
Add a concrete deployment and testing workflow with specific commands (e.g., Hardhat/Foundry compile, test, deploy steps) including validation checkpoints before mainnet deployment
Replace the generic 'Best Practices' bullets with specific security validation steps: e.g., 'Run slither . to check for reentrancy vulnerabilities' and 'Verify with forge test --fuzz-runs 10000'
Remove the 'When to Use' section and 'Common DeFi Patterns' list—Claude already knows these concepts—and use that space for security-critical gotchas specific to each template
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400 lines, dumping four complete smart contract implementations inline. Claude already knows Solidity patterns; this should provide key patterns/gotchas rather than full boilerplate. The 'When to Use' section and 'Common DeFi Patterns' bullet list add little value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code is fully executable Solidity with proper imports, events, modifiers, and complete function implementations. Each contract is copy-paste ready with OpenZeppelin dependencies clearly specified. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no deployment workflow, no testing sequence, no validation steps. For smart contracts handling financial assets, the absence of testing/deployment/verification workflows is a critical gap. The 'Best Practices' section mentions testing and auditing but provides no concrete steps or commands. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to external files (references/*.md, assets/*.sol) are listed, but no bundle files exist to support them. The massive inline contracts should be in the referenced asset files with the SKILL.md providing an overview and key patterns. The structure is present but the content distribution is inverted. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- Dicklesworthstone/pi_agent_rust
- Commit
99da384
- 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.