c4-component
Expert C4 Component-level documentation specialist. Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships. Creates component diagrams and documentation. Use when synthesizing code-level documentation into logical components.
61
53%
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/c4-component/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%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 is a well-structured skill description with clear specificity about C4 Component-level documentation tasks and an explicit 'Use when' clause. The main weakness is the reliance on technical C4 terminology which may not match how all users naturally phrase their requests. The description effectively carves out a distinct niche within the C4 documentation domain.
Suggestions
Add natural language trigger terms users might say, such as 'architecture components', 'system design', 'component breakdown', or 'module documentation'
Include file type triggers if applicable (e.g., 'component.md', 'architecture diagrams')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture', 'defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships', 'Creates component diagrams and documentation'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships. Creates component diagrams and documentation') and when ('Use when synthesizing code-level documentation into logical components'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes domain-specific terms like 'C4', 'Component-level', 'component diagrams', but these are technical jargon. Missing natural variations users might say like 'architecture diagram', 'system components', or 'component design'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very specific niche targeting C4 Component-level documentation specifically, with clear distinction from other C4 levels (Code, Container, Context). The 'C4 Component-level' terminology creates a distinct trigger unlikely to conflict with general documentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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 content is a documentation template rather than actionable guidance. It provides a structural skeleton for C4 Component documentation but lacks any concrete instructions, examples, or workflows that would help Claude actually perform the task of synthesizing code-level documentation into component-level architecture.
Suggestions
Replace placeholder content with concrete examples showing how to identify component boundaries from code-level documentation
Add a step-by-step workflow for synthesizing code elements into components, including validation criteria for component cohesion
Include at least one complete worked example showing input (code-level docs) and output (component documentation)
Remove generic 'Use this skill when' boilerplate and replace with specific triggers like 'when you have 3+ related code-level C4 documents that share common interfaces'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The template includes some unnecessary boilerplate (generic 'Use this skill when' sections) but is reasonably lean. The placeholder structure adds overhead without providing concrete value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | This is entirely a template with placeholders like '[Component Name]', '[Description]', etc. There is no concrete, executable guidance - just abstract structure that describes what should be documented rather than instructing how to do it. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No clear workflow or sequence is provided. The 'Instructions' section offers vague directives like 'Clarify goals' and 'Apply relevant best practices' without any concrete steps, validation checkpoints, or process flow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The structure attempts progressive disclosure with links to sub-skills and code files, but the references are all placeholders. The organization is reasonable but the content is too skeletal to evaluate effective navigation. | 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
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.