CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

angular

Modern Angular (v20+) expert with deep knowledge of Signals, Standalone Components, Zoneless applications, SSR/Hydration, and reactive patterns.

53

1.32x
Quality

31%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.32x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/angular/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

29%Scale 1-3

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

This skill reads like a comprehensive Angular reference guide rather than a focused, actionable skill file. While the code examples are excellent and executable, the content is far too verbose for a SKILL.md—it explains concepts Claude already knows (Signals basics, DI, content projection) and packs everything into a single massive file. The actual workflow instructions are paradoxically the weakest part, being vague and lacking validation steps despite the skill involving potentially breaking changes like zoneless migration.

Suggestions

Reduce the SKILL.md to a concise overview (~50-80 lines) covering key decision points (when to use Signals vs RxJS, zoneless readiness checklist) and move detailed code examples into separate reference files (e.g., SIGNALS.md, SSR.md, TESTING.md)

Replace the vague 4-step Instructions with concrete workflows including validation: e.g., 'Run ng update, verify build passes, enable zoneless in test environment first, run full test suite, check for zone.js-dependent code with grep'

Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows (what Signals are, how DI works, what content projection is) and focus on Angular-specific gotchas, migration pitfalls, and non-obvious patterns

Remove the version timeline with future dates (Q4 2025, Q2 2026) as these are time-sensitive and speculative, or move them to a clearly marked 'roadmap' reference file

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

This is extremely verbose at ~500+ lines, covering 11 major sections with extensive code examples for concepts Claude already knows well (Angular fundamentals, DI patterns, reactive forms, testing setup). Much of this is Angular documentation repackaged rather than novel, project-specific guidance. The version timeline with future dates and the explanations of what Signals are add unnecessary bulk.

1 / 3

Actionability

The code examples are concrete, executable, and copy-paste ready throughout. Every pattern includes complete TypeScript with proper imports, decorators, and template syntax. The examples cover real-world scenarios like auth guards, state services, and testing with signal inputs.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 4-step 'Instructions' section is extremely vague ('Assess the Angular version', 'Apply modern patterns', 'Validate with build and tests') with no concrete commands, validation checkpoints, or error recovery steps. For a skill that involves migration and configuration changes, there are no explicit workflows for how to actually set up or migrate a project safely.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of text with all 11 sections inline. Content like the full state management patterns, testing examples, forms guide, and routing patterns should be split into separate reference files. The external Resources section links to Angular docs but doesn't organize the skill's own content across files.

1 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

32%Scale 1-3

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 reads more like a resume bullet point ('expert with deep knowledge of...') than a skill selection guide. It identifies the Angular domain and lists relevant technical concepts but fails to describe concrete actions the skill performs and completely omits when Claude should select it. The first-person-adjacent 'expert' framing doesn't follow the recommended third-person action voice.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about Angular development, creating Angular components, migrating to Signals, setting up SSR, or working with .ts/.html template files.'

Replace the expertise-focused framing with concrete actions in third person, e.g., 'Creates, refactors, and debugs Angular v20+ applications using Signals, Standalone Components, and Zoneless patterns. Configures SSR/Hydration and implements reactive architectures.'

Add common natural language trigger terms users might say, such as 'Angular project', 'Angular app', 'ng serve', 'component', 'directive', 'Angular migration', or 'TypeScript Angular'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (Angular) and lists specific technical areas (Signals, Standalone Components, Zoneless applications, SSR/Hydration, reactive patterns), but doesn't describe concrete actions—it describes expertise areas rather than what it does (e.g., 'creates components', 'migrates to signals').

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes 'what' at a high level (Angular expertise areas) but completely lacks any 'when should Claude use it' guidance—there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, and per the rubric a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 2, but the 'what' is also weak (describes expertise, not actions), warranting a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant Angular-specific keywords like 'Signals', 'Standalone Components', 'Zoneless', 'SSR/Hydration', and 'Angular v20+' that users might mention, but misses common natural language variations like 'Angular app', 'Angular project', 'component creation', 'migration', or '.ts files'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specificity of 'Angular v20+' and modern Angular concepts like Signals and Zoneless helps distinguish it from generic web development skills, but it could still overlap with general frontend, TypeScript, or web framework skills since no clear boundaries are drawn.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (819 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.