CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

architecture-review

Traceability matrix mapping GDD requirements to ADRs. Finds gaps, cross-ADR conflicts, engine compatibility. PASS/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED/FAIL.

Quality

77%

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-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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.

An exemplary orchestration body: clean phase sequencing, strong validation and error-recovery discipline, and ideal progressive disclosure into verified reference files. The only real cost is boilerplate repetition across the nine phase stubs, which could be stated once and cut.

Suggestions

State the phase-reading rule once before Phase 1 ("Each phase below: read the named file and follow it; re-read it if the conversation was compacted or resumed during that phase") and reduce each phase section to its title plus file pointer.

Trim the explanatory rationale in the Error Recovery Protocol to the operative rules — the failure-mode explanation can live in the referenced error-recovery-protocol.md doc.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean orchestration with no re-teaching of known concepts, but "Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase" is repeated verbatim nine times, and the error-recovery paragraph spends tokens on rationale that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Directives are concrete and executable — exact reference paths per phase, enumerated argument modes, "check the path exists before treating the phase as done", structured [A]/[B]/[C] write-approval options, and a defined retry scope ("fewer GDDs / single-system") — with the how-to detail delegated to the phase files.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 9-phase workflow with explicit validation (artifact-on-disk verification regardless of response fluency) and a genuine error-recovery feedback loop (BLOCKED handling, retry-scope reduction, mandatory partial report).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Textbook one-level-deep structure: SKILL.md is a pure overview, each phase delegates to a real, existing references/N-*.md file with a clear per-phase signal, and no nested reference chains were found in the bundle.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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.

A tight, specific, third-person description with a clear niche and concrete capability list, undermined by the complete absence of any "Use when..." trigger guidance. Adding an explicit trigger clause would move this from good to excellent.

Suggestions

Add a trigger clause, e.g.: "Use when the user asks to review architecture coverage, map requirements to ADRs, check ADR consistency, or verify engine compatibility — typically before Pre-Production kickoff."

Mention the output artifact (the review report / requirements-traceability.md) so the "what" covers the result, not just the checks.

Include the natural phrase "requirements coverage" or "architecture review" as trigger synonyms since users may phrase the request that way.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "mapping GDD requirements to ADRs", "Finds gaps, cross-ADR conflicts, engine compatibility", plus an explicit verdict vocabulary ("PASS/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED/FAIL") — but omits the review-report output and architecture-document coverage, so coverage has minor gaps rather than being comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear and concrete, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the "when" is only weakly implied by domain vocabulary, which caps this dimension at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain terms users would actually say are present ("traceability matrix", "GDD requirements", "ADRs", "cross-ADR conflicts", "engine compatibility"), but common variations like "requirements coverage", "architecture review", and "RTM" are missing from the description.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Traceability matrix mapping GDD requirements to ADRs" carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers (GDD/ADR/traceability vocabulary); conflict risk with other skills is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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-review/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.