architecture-designer

Use when designing new high-level system architecture, reviewing existing designs, or making architectural decisions. Invoke to create architecture diagrams, write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), evaluate technology trade-offs, design component interactions, and plan for scalability. Use for system design, architecture review, microservices structuring, ADR authoring, scalability planning, and infrastructure pattern selection — distinct from code-level design patterns or database-only design tasks.

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

77%

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

This is a well-structured architecture skill with strong actionability through concrete examples (Mermaid diagram, full ADR) and a clear workflow with validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are some unnecessary verbosity in the role definition and 'When to Use' sections, and the fact that all five referenced files in the progressive disclosure table are missing from the bundle, undermining the reference-based design. Overall it provides solid, actionable guidance for architectural work.

Suggestions

Remove or significantly trim the 'Role Definition' persona paragraph and the 'When to Use This Skill' section, as these duplicate the skill description and add tokens without value.

Provide the referenced bundle files (architecture-patterns.md, adr-template.md, system-design.md, database-selection.md, nfr-checklist.md) to fulfill the progressive disclosure promises made in the reference table.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The role definition section ('You are a principal architect with 15+ years of experience...') is unnecessary persona-setting that Claude doesn't need. The 'When to Use This Skill' section largely duplicates the description. However, the reference table, constraints, and examples are reasonably efficient.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides concrete, executable examples: a complete Mermaid diagram, a fully fleshed-out ADR with all sections filled in, a clear output template checklist, and specific reference file paths. These are copy-paste ready and leave no ambiguity about expected outputs.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step core workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: 'Verify full requirements coverage before proceeding' at step 1 and 'If review fails, return to step 3 with recorded feedback' at step 5. This provides a clear feedback loop for error recovery in a non-destructive design process.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The reference table with 5 external files is well-structured with clear 'Load When' conditions, which is excellent design. However, no bundle files were provided, meaning all referenced files (references/architecture-patterns.md, references/adr-template.md, etc.) are missing. The inline ADR example and diagram are appropriate, but the skill's value depends heavily on references that don't exist.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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 strong skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides specific concrete actions, rich trigger terms that users would naturally use, clear 'what' and 'when' guidance, and explicitly differentiates itself from adjacent skills. The explicit boundary-setting at the end ('distinct from code-level design patterns or database-only design tasks') is particularly effective for disambiguation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: create architecture diagrams, write ADRs, evaluate technology trade-offs, design component interactions, and plan for scalability. These are clearly defined, actionable capabilities.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (create diagrams, write ADRs, evaluate trade-offs, design component interactions, plan scalability) and 'when' (designing new architecture, reviewing existing designs, making architectural decisions) with explicit 'Use when' clauses at both the beginning and end.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'system architecture', 'architecture diagrams', 'ADRs', 'Architecture Decision Records', 'technology trade-offs', 'scalability', 'microservices', 'system design', 'architecture review', 'infrastructure pattern'. These are terms users would naturally use when seeking architectural guidance.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Explicitly distinguishes itself from 'code-level design patterns or database-only design tasks', which directly addresses potential overlap with related skills. The focus on high-level system architecture, ADRs, and infrastructure patterns creates a clear niche.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Jeffallan/claude-skills
Commit: e8be415

Reviewed: 21 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.