CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

echo-project-starter

Scaffold and develop production-ready REST APIs using the Echo v4 web framework with custom validation, JWT auth, Swagger, and idiomatic Go patterns.

Quality

70%

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 ./backend-go/echo-project-starter/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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.

A highly actionable, well-structured scaffolding guide with executable code throughout and a clear post-scaffold workflow. Its weaknesses are monolithic inlining of full code templates (no progressive disclosure via reference files), ~300 lines of derivable boilerplate that inflates token cost, and small wiring inconsistencies (server.New/db mismatch, phantom migrations directory). Moving templates to references/ and keeping only the distinctive patterns inline would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Move the full per-file code templates (handler, service, repository, middleware) into references/ files (e.g., references/user_handler.go.txt) and keep only the distinctive patterns — custom validator, error handler, graceful shutdown, JWT config — inline in SKILL.md.

Fix the wiring inconsistencies: either show the gorm DB construction passed to server.New(cfg, db) or change the signature to server.New(cfg), and add the migrations/ directory (or drop the migrate step) so the first-steps sequence is executable as written.

Trim derivable boilerplate (full CRUD service/handler bodies) to the idiomatic skeleton and add error-recovery guidance to 'First Steps After Scaffold' (e.g., what to check when the server fails to start or migrations fail).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids concept-explaining padding (no 'what is REST' or library tutorials) and every section carries information, but ~300 lines of complete CRUD implementations (full service layer, full handler set) are inlined — content a competent Go model could largely derive and that could be trimmed to the distinctive patterns. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' better than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is overwhelmingly executable: copy-paste go get commands, complete compilable Go files, concrete common commands, and a curl verification step. Minor gaps keep it below 5 — main.go calls server.New(cfg) while server.New is defined as New(cfg *config.Config, db *gorm.DB) with the gorm DB never wired anywhere, and the first steps reference a migrations/ directory that does not appear in the project structure.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

'First Steps After Scaffold' gives a clear numbered sequence (env setup → dependency download → migrations → run → curl /healthz test) with an explicit verification checkpoint, and 'Common Commands' covers the dev loop. It is not a 5 because there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g., what to do when migration or startup fails) and the migration step's validation is only implicit in the later curl check.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md is well-sectioned with clear headers, but there are no bundle files at all — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ — and roughly 400 lines of code templates that would fit naturally in reference files (e.g., per-file templates under references/) are inlined. This matches 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' rather than the 4 anchor's 'most content appropriately placed in separate files'.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 specific, feature-rich description that clearly communicates what the skill does in the Echo v4 niche. Its main weakness is the complete absence of a 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and weakens discoverability. Adding trigger guidance and natural synonyms (e.g., 'Golang', 'backend API') would lift it to the top band.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when building a new Go/Golang backend REST API with Echo, adding JWT auth or Swagger to an Echo project, or scaffolding a production API server.'

Add natural synonym keywords users would actually say — 'Golang', 'backend', 'web API', 'API server' — to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten 'idiomatic Go patterns' into concrete actions (e.g., 'layered handler/service/repository structure, graceful shutdown') to move specificity from feature nouns toward actionable verbs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Echo v4 web framework', 'REST APIs', 'Go') and several concrete capabilities ('custom validation, JWT auth, Swagger, and idiomatic Go patterns'), matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because it offers only two verbs ('Scaffold and develop') with the rest being feature nouns rather than a comprehensive list of concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (scaffold and develop production-ready REST APIs with Echo v4), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3 ('has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'). It is not a 2 because the what half is concrete and specific rather than vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present: 'REST APIs', 'JWT auth', 'Swagger', 'Go', 'Echo'. A few natural terms are missing — no 'Golang' synonym, no 'backend'/'web service'/'API server' phrasing — matching the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Echo v4' pins a clear niche with distinct triggers (JWT auth, Swagger, idiomatic Go), giving mostly distinct content with minor overlap risk against generic Go-backend or Gin-oriented skills. It lacks the fully self-contained trigger phrasing of the 5 anchor, which pairs capabilities with explicit 'use when' triggers.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (526 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

achreftlili/deep-dev-skills

Path

backend-go/echo-project-starter/SKILL.md

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.