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 domain (DeFi) and lists specific protocol types it covers. It includes an explicit 'Use when' clause which aids in skill selection. The main weakness is that trigger term coverage could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings and related terminology.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations users might say, such as 'yield farming', 'liquidity pools', 'token swaps', 'DAO voting', 'Solidity', or '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 production-ready templates for staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems') 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 with specific subtypes (staking, AMMs, governance, lending) carve out a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general smart contract skills or other blockchain-related skills. | 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 provides high-quality, executable Solidity templates but fails as a SKILL.md by inlining hundreds of lines of contract code that belong in referenced asset files. It completely lacks deployment/testing workflows and validation checkpoints, which are critical for smart contract development involving financial assets. The content would be significantly improved by moving full contracts to asset files and replacing them with concise pattern summaries, key decisions, and a clear development workflow.
Suggestions
Move full contract implementations to the referenced asset files (assets/staking-contract.sol, etc.) and replace inline code with concise pattern summaries showing only the key design decisions and critical code snippets.
Add a concrete deployment and testing workflow with explicit validation steps: compile, run unit tests, run fuzzing, verify on testnet, audit checklist before mainnet deployment.
Add specific testing commands (e.g., `forge test`, `hardhat test`) and a security checklist with concrete items to verify before deployment.
Remove the 'When to Use This Skill' and 'Common DeFi Patterns' sections which explain concepts Claude already knows, and replace with decision guidance on which template to choose for specific requirements.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines, mostly consisting of full contract implementations inlined directly. Claude already understands Solidity patterns like staking rewards, AMMs, and governance. The 'When to Use This Skill' section and 'Common DeFi Patterns' bullet list add little value. Most of this content belongs in reference files, not the main skill body. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code is fully executable, complete Solidity contracts with proper imports, events, modifiers, and function implementations. Each template is copy-paste ready with OpenZeppelin dependencies clearly specified. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no workflow for deploying, testing, or validating these contracts. For smart contracts handling financial assets, the absence of testing steps, deployment sequences, and security validation checkpoints is a critical gap. The 'Best Practices' section mentions testing and auditing but provides no concrete steps or commands. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Resources section references external files appropriately, but the main body contains ~300+ lines of full contract code that should be in those referenced asset files. The skill body should be an overview with key patterns and links, not a monolithic dump of complete contracts. | 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
47823e3
- 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.