andrew-kane-gem-writer

Write Ruby gems following Andrew Kane's proven patterns and philosophy. Use when creating new Ruby gems, refactoring existing gems, designing gem APIs, or when the user wants clean, minimal, production-ready Ruby library code. Triggers on requests like "create a gem", "write a Ruby library", "design a gem API", or mentions of Andrew Kane's style.

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills_all/andrew-kane-gem-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 lean, code-dense pattern reference with a useful anti-patterns section, but it functions as an unsequenced catalog rather than a workflow for creating a gem, and its progressive-disclosure promise is broken because all five referenced files are missing from the bundle. Actionable guidance is strong; navigation and process sequencing are the weak points.

Suggestions

Create the five referenced files under references/ (or remove the 'Reference Files' section) — every link currently points to a nonexistent path, breaking the skill's navigation.

Add a sequenced gem-creation workflow (e.g., 1. scaffold directory, 2. write lib entry point, 3. gemspec, 4. Minitest harness, 5. verify by running tests / building the gem) with explicit validation checkpoints.

Remove the duplicated 'class << self' configuration code block — it appears nearly verbatim in both 'Entry Point Structure' and 'Configuration Pattern'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient: short headers, code-first, no padding or explanations of basic concepts, and an explicit anti-patterns list. The only trimmable redundancy is the 'class << self' / attr_accessor configuration block, which appears nearly identically in both 'Entry Point Structure' and 'Configuration Pattern'.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable Ruby appears in every section (entry point, macro DSL, on_load integration, gemspec, Minitest setup). Minor gaps: the DSL example contains placeholder comments like '# implementation' and 'define_method :some_method', so not everything is copy-paste ready, matching 'concrete code with minor gaps'.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Content is organized by topic, not as a sequenced process — there is no ordered workflow (scaffold → entry point → gemspec → tests → verify) and no validation checkpoints like running tests or building the gem. The 'Entry Point Structure' section gives an internal ordering, but overall sequence is only implicit; this is not destructive/batch work, so the 3-cap rules are not triggered.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body ends with a well-labeled, one-level-deep reference listing (module-organization.md, rails-integration.md, database-adapters.md, testing-patterns.md, resources.md), but none of these files exist — the bundle contains no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories at all. Per the actual bundle structure, the navigation is broken: every 'see references/...' pointer leads to a missing file, which is worse than buried references.	2 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 strong description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases users would naturally say. It is specific to a well-defined niche and uses appropriate third-person voice; the only gaps are a few missing natural synonyms (gemspec, publishing).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several concrete actions — 'Write Ruby gems', 'refactoring existing gems', 'designing gem APIs' — grounded in a specific domain (Andrew Kane's patterns). Minor gaps: it never mentions gemspec/publishing or testing, so it falls just short of comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both questions: what ('Write Ruby gems following Andrew Kane's proven patterns and philosophy') and when ('Use when creating new Ruby gems, refactoring existing gems, designing gem APIs... Triggers on requests like "create a gem"...'). This matches the top anchor with concrete trigger phrases; not the level below because the 'when' is explicit, not vague.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keyword coverage: 'create a gem', 'write a Ruby library', 'design a gem API', 'Andrew Kane's style', plus the synonym 'Ruby library'. A few natural terms users would say are missing (e.g., 'publish a gem', 'gemspec', 'bundle a gem'), which keeps it below the comprehensive anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche — Ruby gems in Andrew Kane's specific style — with distinct triggers ('Andrew Kane's style', 'design a gem API') that no general Ruby or coding skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk with generic language-model or library skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 5 missing	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 10 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Microck/ordinary-claude-skills
Path: skills_all/andrew-kane-gem-writer/SKILL.md
Commit: 1056d29

Reviewed: 6 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.