web3-fullstack-systematic-build

Systematic approach to building full-stack Web3 applications layer by layer

Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./benchmarks/gdpval/skills/web3-fullstack-systematic-build/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%

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

The skill is a well-sequenced, highly actionable build guide with real executable code at each phase. Its weaknesses are mild verbosity from recap material, a missing deployment feedback loop, and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add an explicit deploy feedback loop: deploy to a testnet first, verify the contract on the explorer, then promote to mainnet only after verification passes.

Tighten by removing the 'Key Principles' recap (it restates the phase headers) and trimming the intro paragraph to a single sentence.

Move the larger code listings (full contract implementations, deploy scripts, component examples) into reference files under references/ and link to them from SKILL.md to enable progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body avoids explaining basic concepts Claude knows, but the intro paragraph ('Follow this sequence to maintain clarity, reduce coupling...') and the 'Key Principles' section restate what the phases already show; mostly efficient with tightening potential, matching anchor 2 not 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides real, executable code throughout — mkdir commands, a compiling Solidity interface and contract, JS network/contract config, a wagmi JSX component, and a deploy script — not pseudocode; matches anchor 3 despite some illustrative partiality.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 6-phase sequence with explicit checkpoints ('compile and test each contract before moving to the next', 'validate interface completeness before proceeding'), but the destructive/irreversible deployment step lacks an explicit testnet→verify→mainnet feedback loop, capping it at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into phased sections but monolithic: a single ~200-line file with no bundle files and all detailed code inline that could be split into references; anchor 2, and the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 states a clear niche and approach but is uniformly at the mid-level: it conveys 'what' without explicit 'when' triggers and lists no concrete actions. It is functional but indistinct and trigger-poor.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when building dApps, smart contracts with a React frontend, or full-stack Web3 projects that integrate protocols like Aave or Uniswap.'

Enumerate specific concrete actions instead of the generic 'building... layer by layer' (e.g. 'scaffold contract and frontend structure, define interfaces, implement and test contracts, wire up wagmi components, write deploy scripts').

Include natural user variations ('dApp', 'smart contract', 'DeFi frontend', 'wagmi/ethers') to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('full-stack Web3 applications') and a general approach ('building... layer by layer') but lists no concrete actions like deploying contracts or building frontends; matches anchor 2, not 3 (no enumerated specific actions) nor 1 (domain and an action are present).	2 / 3
Completeness	Answers 'what' (a systematic layer-by-layer build approach) but provides no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some natural keywords ('Web3', 'full-stack', 'applications') a user might say, but coverage is limited with no common variations or trigger context; anchor 2 rather than 3 (thin coverage) or 1 (keywords are natural, not jargon).	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'full-stack Web3 applications' is a defined niche but lacks distinct triggers and could overlap with general full-stack or smart-contract skills; anchor 2, not 1 (it is a real niche) or 3 (no distinctive triggers).	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing, 1 deeper-than-1-level	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: HKUDS/OpenSpace
Path: benchmarks/gdpval/skills/web3-fullstack-systematic-build/SKILL.md
Commit: c5a9c4b

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.