CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

32

Quality

27%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agent/skills/backend-development-feature-development/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 provides a high-level orchestration framework but fails to deliver actionable, concrete guidance for any of its phases. The instructions read like a table of contents rather than executable steps, and critical safety-sensitive operations (production deployments, data migrations) lack validation checkpoints and rollback procedures. The sub-skill references suggest good progressive disclosure intent, but without bundle files and with such vague top-level content, the skill is not practically useful.

Suggestions

Replace the four abstract instruction steps with concrete, sequenced workflows including specific outputs per phase (e.g., 'Phase 1 output: requirements doc with acceptance criteria in this format: ...').

Add explicit validation checkpoints and rollback procedures for deployment and data migration steps—e.g., 'Validate migration in staging → Run smoke tests → Only proceed if all pass → Deploy with rollback plan: ...'.

Remove the extended thinking block entirely and replace with a concrete example of orchestrating a feature end-to-end, showing actual inputs/outputs at each phase.

Fill in the empty 'Configuration Options' section or remove it, and provide the referenced sub-skill bundle files so the progressive disclosure structure is functional.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The extended thinking block is unnecessary filler that Claude doesn't need—it explains the rationale behind the workflow rather than providing actionable content. The 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections add some value but are somewhat verbose. The core instructions are lean but the surrounding content dilutes efficiency.

2 / 3

Actionability

The instructions are extremely vague—'Confirm feature scope,' 'Select a methodology,' 'Orchestrate implementation' are abstract directives with no concrete commands, code, templates, or specific examples. There is nothing executable or copy-paste ready; the skill describes rather than instructs.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is high-level and lacks any validation checkpoints, feedback loops, or error recovery steps. For a skill involving production deployments, data migrations, and cross-team coordination—all destructive/risky operations—the absence of explicit validation gates and rollback procedures is a critical gap.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references five sub-skill files with clear one-level-deep links, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references resolve to actual content. The main file itself is thin to the point of being unhelpful without those sub-skills, and the 'Configuration Options' header is empty.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

32%

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 suffers from being overly abstract and buzzword-heavy without specifying concrete actions or distinct triggers. The 'Use when' clause essentially paraphrases the first sentence rather than providing genuinely useful selection criteria. It would be very difficult for Claude to distinguish this skill from other backend development, project management, or deployment-related skills.

Suggestions

Replace abstract language with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Generates API specifications, writes database schemas, creates service integration plans, and produces deployment checklists for backend features.'

Expand the 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms users would actually say, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to build a new backend feature, plan a multi-service integration, scaffold an API, or coordinate a feature rollout across microservices.'

Add distinguishing details that carve out a clear niche, such as specifying the types of backends (REST APIs, microservices, event-driven systems) or the phases covered (design, implementation, testing, deployment) to reduce conflict with generic coding or DevOps skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague, abstract language like 'orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development' and 'coordinating multi-phase feature delivery' without listing any concrete actions. No specific tasks like 'generate API endpoints', 'write database migrations', or 'create service contracts' are mentioned.

1 / 3

Completeness

It has a 'what' (orchestrate backend feature development) and a 'Use when' clause (coordinating multi-phase feature delivery across teams), but both are vague and abstract. The 'when' clause essentially restates the 'what' in different words rather than providing explicit, actionable triggers.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant keywords like 'backend', 'feature development', 'deployment', and 'requirements', but these are fairly generic. Missing natural terms users might say like 'API', 'microservices', 'database', 'REST', 'sprint planning', or specific technology references that would help distinguish this skill.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Extremely generic phrasing like 'end-to-end backend feature development' and 'multi-phase feature delivery across teams and services' could easily overlap with project management skills, DevOps skills, backend coding skills, or deployment skills. There is no clear niche carved out.

1 / 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.

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.