architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.
45
Quality
36%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agent/skills/architect-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
50%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 identifies a clear domain (software architecture) and mentions relevant patterns, but relies too heavily on technical jargon and role-based language ('Master software architect') rather than concrete actions. The 'Use PROACTIVELY' guidance is too vague to help Claude determine when to select this skill over others, and it uses first-person framing implicitly through the role description.
Suggestions
Replace 'Master software architect specializing in...' with concrete actions like 'Evaluates system designs, recommends architecture patterns, identifies scalability issues, and reviews code for architectural compliance.'
Expand the 'Use when' clause with specific triggers: 'Use when user asks about system design, mentions microservices vs monolith, discusses service boundaries, or needs help with architectural decisions for new features.'
Add natural user phrases as trigger terms: 'architecture review', 'system design', 'how should I structure', 'service boundaries', 'scaling concerns'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names domain (software architecture) and some actions (reviews system designs, code changes), but uses vague terms like 'Master software architect' and lists patterns without explaining concrete actions Claude performs with them. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'what' (reviews designs for architectural integrity) but the 'when' clause ('Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions') is vague and doesn't provide explicit trigger scenarios or user phrases that would invoke this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant technical terms (microservices, event-driven, DDD, clean architecture) but these are jargon-heavy. Missing natural user phrases like 'design review', 'system design', 'architecture advice', or 'how should I structure'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to architecture domain but could overlap with general code review skills or design pattern skills. Terms like 'code changes' and 'maintainability' are generic enough to conflict with other development-focused skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides good structural organization with sub-skill references but fails to deliver actionable guidance. The instructions are abstract descriptions of what an architect does rather than concrete steps Claude can execute. The skill would benefit significantly from specific review checklists, example architectural questions, and concrete evaluation criteria.
Suggestions
Replace abstract instructions with a concrete architectural review checklist (e.g., 'Check for single points of failure', 'Verify data consistency boundaries', 'Assess coupling between services')
Add specific example inputs and outputs showing what an architectural review looks like (e.g., 'Given this service diagram, identify these concerns')
Include validation criteria for each step - what makes an architecture 'good enough' vs 'needs revision'
Remove the redundant 'Expert Purpose' section that duplicates the opening statement and 'Use this skill when' content
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill has some redundancy (e.g., 'Expert Purpose' section largely repeats the opening statement and 'Use this skill when' section). The content is reasonably efficient but could be tightened by removing duplicate explanations of the architect's role. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are vague and abstract ('Gather system context', 'Evaluate architecture decisions', 'Recommend improvements'). No concrete examples, checklists, specific questions to ask, or executable guidance for how to actually perform an architectural review. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step workflow is too abstract to be useful. No validation checkpoints, no specific criteria for evaluation, no feedback loops for iterating on architectural decisions. 'Document decisions and follow up on validation' lacks any concrete guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill appropriately references 10 sub-skills in separate files, which is good structure. However, the main file lacks any substantive quick-start content - it's mostly metadata and abstract instructions with all real content presumably in sub-skills, making the overview too thin. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide
- Commit
3395991
- 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.