CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

architecture-decision

Create an ADR documenting a technical decision: context, alternatives considered, consequences.

Quality

74%

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 ./.claude/skills/architecture-decision/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a well-engineered orchestration layer: exact commands, verbatim prompts, explicit mode routing, and guardrails (no-argument guard, do-not-unblock rationale, fixed review-independence notice), with all detailed steps correctly pushed to six flat, clearly signaled reference files. The only real costs are the five-times-repeated delegation boilerplate and validation detail that lives entirely in the references rather than the body. No suggestions — the structure is strong as-is.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and directive with no basic-concept padding (it references `.claude/docs/director-gates.md` and engine docs without explaining them), but the two-sentence delegation formula "Read it now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed" is repeated verbatim five times and could be stated once, fitting anchor 4 (efficient with minor trimmable over-explanation).

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete: an executable bash resolve_config command, exact argument patterns ("retrofit <path>", "accept <ADR-id>"), a literal scan instruction ("Scan `docs/architecture/`"), a copy-paste widget format template, verbatim user prompts, and a verbatim fixed notice — all common cases (normal authoring, retrofit, accept, no-argument) have specific handling, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Phase 0 mode detection with a no-argument guard, then numbered phases 1-6) with strong checkpoints at the boundaries (gate-based spawned validation, write approval, the "Do NOT unblock stories" guard, the pre-widget checklist), fitting anchor 4; it is not a 5 because the body itself delegates the intra-phase validation loops for phases 3-5 to the reference files rather than spelling them out inline.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean router: six reference files, each clearly signaled ("Read `references/N-x.md` now and follow it"), all verified to exist and flat in one directory with self-identifying headers ("Part of `/architecture-decision`") and only a single flat sibling cross-reference (0-retrofit.md → 5-generate.md), matching anchor 5 (clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references).

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 delivers a clear, concise statement of the deliverable (an ADR with context, alternatives, consequences) in proper third-person style, but it answers only "what" and not "when". It also undersells the skill: the retrofit and accept modes are major capabilities that a user would never know exist. Adding an explicit trigger clause and the spelled-out term "architecture decision record" would move it from adequate to strong.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to document an architecture or technical decision, write an ADR, or record design alternatives and their consequences."

Spell out the acronym and add natural synonyms users would actually say: "ADR (architecture decision record)", "design decision", "record a decision".

Mention the retrofit and acceptance capabilities (e.g. "retrofit an existing decision document, or accept a proposed ADR to unblock dependent stories") so the description covers the skill's full scope.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Create an ADR documenting a technical decision: context, alternatives considered, consequences" names the domain and the deliverable's three components, but coverage is not comprehensive — the skill's retrofit and acceptance modes are entirely unmentioned, matching anchor 3 rather than the minor-gaps profile of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (create an ADR with context, alternatives, consequences) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3; it is not a 2 because the "what" half is concrete and specific.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"ADR" and "technical decision" are relevant keywords, but common variations are missing: "architecture decision" is never spelled out, and natural synonyms like "design decision" or "record a decision" are absent, fitting anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations).

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Create an ADR documenting a technical decision" carves out a distinct documentation niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill, fitting anchor 4; it falls short of anchor 5 because without trigger phrases, closely related decision/design skills retain minor overlap risk.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

Path

.claude/skills/architecture-decision/SKILL.md

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.