CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

system-architecture

Design systems with appropriate complexity - no more, no less. Use when the user asks to architect applications, design system boundaries, plan service decomposition, evaluate monolith vs microservices, make scaling decisions, or review structural trade-offs. Applies to new system design, refactoring, and migration planning.

72

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

The content is well-structured and highly actionable with a clear workflow, but it is slightly verbose in places and, more importantly, references two bundle files (examples.md, scaling-checklist.md) that do not exist. Adding the missing referenced files (or removing the dangling links) is the main fix.

Suggestions

Create the missing referenced files examples.md and scaling-checklist.md (or remove the dangling links) so the progressive-disclosure navigation actually resolves.

Tighten the Anti-Patterns table by collapsing redundant rows that all express 'don't over-abstract' (e.g. interfaces-with-one-implementation, hexagonal-ports-with-one-adapter, AbstractFactoryFactoryBean) into a single entry to reduce token cost.

Trim the editorializing in the closing paragraph and reduce overlap between Core Principles and Success Criteria to improve conciseness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 16-row anti-patterns table has redundancy (several rows restate 'don't over-abstract'), Success Criteria overlaps Core Principles, and the closing editorializing ('Build boring systems that work') could be trimmed, so it could be tightened rather than earning a 3.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete constraint questions, a specific complexity checklist, a full output template, concrete Don't/Do-Instead pairs, and measurable heuristics ('adding a feature touches 1-3 modules', 'deployable units <= number of teams'), which is highly actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-step workflow with a task-progress checklist and an explicit gate in Step 5 ('If any answer is "no", keep it simple'), plus Success Criteria as a result checklist; no destructive/batch retry loop is required here, matching the clear-sequence-with-checklists anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and defers detail to one-level-deep, well-signaled references, but neither referenced file exists (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories and no examples.md or scaling-checklist.md anywhere), so the navigation is broken rather than easy, capping it at 2 rather than 3.

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.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, complete, and distinctive, written in third person with no over-claims. It cleanly answers both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions such as 'architect applications, design system boundaries, plan service decomposition, evaluate monolith vs microservices, make scaling decisions, or review structural trade-offs', matching the anchor for listing multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states both what ('Design systems with appropriate complexity - no more, no less') and when ('Use when the user asks to architect applications... Applies to new system design, refactoring, and migration planning'), with explicit triggers, so it is not capped at 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural terms a user would actually say ('architect applications', 'monolith vs microservices', 'scaling decisions', 'structural trade-offs') with good coverage, matching the high-coverage anchor rather than the partial-coverage anchor below.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear system-architecture niche with distinct triggers; while 'refactoring' is broad, it is framed structurally and is unlikely to misfire against unrelated skills, matching the clear-niche anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
MODSetter/SurfSense
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.