backend-development-feature-development
Orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development from requirements to deployment. Use when coordinating multi-phase feature delivery across teams and services.
55
44%
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/backend-development-feature-development/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 has good structure with explicit 'what' and 'when' clauses, earning full marks for completeness. However, it relies on abstract orchestration language rather than concrete actions, and the trigger terms could be more comprehensive to capture natural user queries about backend development workflows.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions like 'design APIs, coordinate database changes, manage service dependencies, track cross-team blockers' to improve specificity
Include more natural trigger terms users might say: 'backend project', 'API development', 'microservices', 'feature rollout', 'cross-service changes'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain ('backend feature development') and mentions phases ('requirements to deployment'), but lacks concrete actions. 'Orchestrate' and 'coordinating' are somewhat vague compared to specific actions like 'create API endpoints, write database migrations, configure CI/CD pipelines'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what ('Orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development from requirements to deployment') and when ('Use when coordinating multi-phase feature delivery across teams and services') with a clear 'Use when...' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms ('backend', 'feature development', 'deployment', 'requirements'), but misses common variations users might say like 'API', 'microservices', 'sprint planning', 'feature implementation', or 'backend project'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to backend orchestration, but 'feature development' and 'deployment' could overlap with general coding skills, DevOps skills, or project management skills. The 'multi-phase' and 'across teams' qualifiers help but aren't strongly distinctive. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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 a high-level framework for feature orchestration but lacks the concrete, actionable guidance needed for execution. The instructions are abstract descriptions rather than executable steps, and the workflow lacks validation checkpoints critical for multi-phase operations. The content over-relies on sub-skills without providing sufficient standalone value.
Suggestions
Replace abstract instructions with concrete steps: specify exact outputs for each phase (e.g., 'Phase 1 produces: requirements.md with acceptance criteria, architecture-decision-record.md, risk-assessment.md')
Add explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g., 'Before proceeding to implementation: verify architecture review is approved, security review is complete, test plan is signed off')
Include a concrete example workflow showing inputs, agent handoffs, and expected artifacts at each stage
Remove the extended thinking block - it's meta-commentary that doesn't help Claude execute the skill
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The extended thinking block adds unnecessary meta-commentary that Claude doesn't need. The content is reasonably brief but includes some padding like explaining when to use/not use the skill that could be more concise. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are vague and abstract ('Confirm feature scope', 'Select a methodology', 'Orchestrate implementation') with no concrete commands, code examples, or specific executable steps. It describes rather than instructs. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step workflow is extremely high-level with no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops, and no concrete sequencing. For a complex multi-phase orchestration skill, this lacks the explicit validation steps and error recovery guidance needed. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to sub-skills are present and one-level deep, which is good. However, the main skill content is too sparse to serve as a useful overview - it delegates almost everything to sub-skills without providing enough context to understand the workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide
- Commit
332e58b
- 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.