CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

system-design

用于系统设计面试出题;聚焦容量估算、可用性与一致性权衡、可观测性和故障恢复。

58

Quality

66%

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 ./app/src/main/resources/skills/system-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 admirably lean and gives concrete interviewer directives, but it lacks a fully sequenced workflow with checkpoints and references four resource files that are not present in the bundle, weakening progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add the missing referenced files (high-availability.md, distributed.md, redis.md, design-pattern.md) under references/ or remove the dangling references.

Provide 1-2 concrete example questions to make the guidance copy-paste ready and raise actionability.

Turn the directives into an explicit sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint (e.g. 'Confirm constraints are pinned before advancing to solution discussion').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient with no padding: each directive ("先澄清约束...再讨论方案", "禁止组件罗列式问答,必须落到数据流与状态流") earns its place and assumes Claude's competence without explaining concepts Claude already knows.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, specific directives (clarify QPS/SLA/consistency/cost first; require capacity/fault/rollback/observability explanations; force data-flow and state-flow answers) are actionable, but no concrete example questions are provided to cover common cases, keeping it just below fully copy-paste-ready at 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence exists ("先澄清约束...再讨论方案") but steps 2-4 are standing principles rather than a sequenced workflow, and there are no validation/checkpoint steps for evaluating candidate responses; this fits the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing' anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep by category (HIGH_AVAILABILITY -> high-availability.md, etc.), but the referenced files (high-availability.md, distributed.md, redis.md, design-pattern.md) do not exist in any bundle directory, so the disclosure structure is broken rather than well-organized.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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.

The description is concise and names a clear niche with good natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and lists only one concrete action supported by topic areas rather than several concrete actions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when preparing for or generating system design interview questions.'

Convert the focus topics into concrete actions (e.g. 'designs capacity-estimation drills', 'poses availability-vs-consistency tradeoff questions') to raise specificity.

Include common synonyms/extensions (高并发, scalability, SLA/back-of-envelope) to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("系统设计面试出题") and one concrete action (出题 / question-setting) plus specific focus topics ("容量估算、可用性与一致性权衡、可观测性和故障恢复"), but does not list multiple concrete actions, fitting the 1-2 concrete actions anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (generate system-design interview questions), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; per the judging guideline a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3, and the "when" is only weakly implied by "用于...出题".

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would say ("系统设计面试", "容量估算", "可用性与一致性权衡", "可观测性", "故障恢复") with good coverage; missing a few natural synonyms/extensions (e.g. 高并发, scalability, English variants) that would push it to 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a fairly distinct niche (interview question-setting focused on capacity/availability/observability) with low conflict risk, but the broad "系统设计" framing could overlap with general architecture skills, keeping it just below the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
Snailclimb/interview-guide
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.