CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

architecture

Architectural decision-making framework.

22

Quality

11%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agent/skills/architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

22%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill functions primarily as a table of contents rather than a substantive guide. It lacks any concrete, actionable content — no decision-making frameworks, no examples, no executable steps — relying entirely on referenced files that don't exist in the bundle. The core principle section and validation checklist are too generic to provide meaningful guidance for architecture decisions.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, step-by-step workflow in the body itself (e.g., 1. Gather requirements → 2. Classify project type → 3. Select patterns → 4. Document ADR → 5. Validate) with specific actions at each step.

Include at least one concrete example of an architecture decision process inline — e.g., a mini ADR template with a filled-in example showing input requirements and output decision.

Provide the referenced bundle files (context-discovery.md, trade-off-analysis.md, etc.) or inline the most critical content so the skill is functional on its own.

Replace the generic validation checklist with specific validation criteria and what to do when a check fails (e.g., 'If simpler alternatives not considered, revisit pattern-selection.md decision trees').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with a clean table-based content map and concise core principle section. However, the quote at the top and the 'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' quote add little value for Claude, and the related skills section is filler if those skills aren't available.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides no concrete, executable guidance — no code, no commands, no specific examples of how to actually make architecture decisions. It's essentially a table of contents pointing to other files and a vague checklist, with no actionable content in the body itself.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is no clear workflow or sequenced process for architecture decision-making. The validation checklist at the end is a static list without sequencing, feedback loops, or guidance on what to do when checks fail. The skill doesn't describe how to move from requirements to decisions to documentation.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content map table is well-structured with clear 'When to Read' guidance, and references are one level deep. However, no bundle files are provided, so all referenced files (context-discovery.md, trade-off-analysis.md, etc.) are missing, making the progressive disclosure structure hollow — the skill is essentially an empty shell pointing to nonexistent content.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

0%

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 description is critically underspecified. It provides no concrete actions, no trigger terms a user would naturally use, and no guidance on when Claude should select this skill. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably choose this skill from a pool of alternatives.

Suggestions

List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), documents trade-off analyses, and tracks design rationale.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about architecture decisions, ADRs, design trade-offs, or documenting technical choices.'

Include file types or artifacts involved (e.g., 'ADR markdown files', 'decision logs') to improve distinctiveness and reduce conflict with generic architecture or documentation skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description is extremely vague — 'architectural decision-making framework' names a broad domain but lists zero concrete actions. There are no verbs describing what the skill actually does.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description barely addresses 'what' (and only in the vaguest sense) and completely omits 'when' — there is no 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The terms 'architectural', 'decision-making', and 'framework' are abstract and jargon-heavy. Users are unlikely to naturally say these exact phrases when seeking help; common variations like 'ADR', 'design decisions', 'architecture docs', or 'trade-off analysis' are absent.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Architectural decision-making framework' is so broad it could overlap with software architecture skills, system design skills, documentation skills, or general planning skills. Nothing narrows its niche.

1 / 3

Total

4

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide
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.