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.
51
Quality
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 structural completeness with explicit 'what' and 'when' clauses, but suffers from vague action verbs ('orchestrate', 'coordinating') rather than concrete capabilities. The trigger terms are adequate but could be expanded to include more natural user language around backend development workflows.
Suggestions
Replace vague verbs with specific actions: e.g., 'Design APIs, coordinate database schema changes, manage service dependencies, and track deployment pipelines'
Add more natural trigger terms users would say: 'API development', 'microservices', 'sprint delivery', 'release coordination', 'cross-team features'
| 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 'release management'. | 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 functions more as a placeholder or index than actionable guidance. The instructions are too abstract to be useful without diving into sub-skills, and critical workflow elements like validation checkpoints and rollback procedures are mentioned in safety notes but not integrated into the workflow steps. The extended thinking block wastes tokens explaining intent rather than providing executable guidance.
Suggestions
Replace abstract instructions with concrete, sequenced steps including specific validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Run staging deployment validation before production: `./scripts/validate-staging.sh`')
Add explicit feedback loops for risky operations like data migrations and production deployments (validate -> fix -> retry pattern)
Remove the extended thinking block and integrate any essential context directly into actionable instructions
Include at least one concrete example workflow showing inputs, decision points, and expected outputs for a typical feature
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The extended thinking block adds unnecessary verbosity explaining the workflow's purpose. The content is reasonably lean otherwise but includes some redundant phrasing like 'Orchestrate end-to-end feature development' repeated in different forms. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Instructions are vague and abstract ('Confirm feature scope', 'Select a methodology', 'Orchestrate implementation'). No concrete commands, code examples, or specific steps that Claude could execute. Relies entirely on sub-skills without providing actionable guidance in the main file. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step instructions are high-level abstractions without clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops. For a workflow involving production deployments and data migrations, the lack of explicit validation steps and error recovery is a significant gap. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to sub-skills are present and one-level deep, which is good. However, the main skill provides almost no actionable content itself—it's essentially just a table of contents with vague instructions, making the structure feel hollow rather than well-organized. | 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
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.