architecture-patterns

Master proven backend architecture patterns including Clean Architecture, Hexagonal Architecture, and Domain-Driven Design to build maintainable, testable, and scalable systems.

Quality

55%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/architecture-patterns/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 concise and well-sectioned but offers only high-level directives with no concrete, executable guidance, and its single external reference points to a file that is not present in the bundle. Adding concrete examples and providing (or removing) the missing playbook would materially raise the score.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable artifact per instruction — e.g., a minimal dependency-rule example, a module-boundary checklist, or a sample interface contract — so the guidance is actionable rather than descriptive.

Provide the missing `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or correct the path) so the referenced detailed patterns, checklists, and templates actually exist; a dangling reference undermines progressive disclosure.

Make the validation step explicit with a checkpoint and fix-and-retry loop (e.g., 'Verify dependency direction with <command>; if a dependency violates the rule, move the interface and re-verify') to lift workflow_clarity above 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no concept over-explanation and assumes Claude's competence, but the frontmatter description is repeated verbatim as the opening paragraph, a minor redundancy that keeps it just below the 'every token earns its place' anchor of 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The instructions are high-level directives ('Select an architecture pattern that fits', 'Define module boundaries, interfaces, and dependency rules') with no concrete method, commands, or examples, and the referenced playbook for detail does not exist, matching 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered 1-5 sequence is present, but validation appears only as an abstract mention ('validation checks') with no explicit checkpoint or fix-and-retry feedback loop, fitting 'Steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is reasonable and the reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` is clearly signaled, but that referenced file is absent from the bundle, so the promised detailed patterns, checklists, and templates are unreachable — structure present but the disclosed detail is missing.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 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 clearly states what the skill covers with concrete named architecture patterns and good natural trigger terms, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps completeness. Adding a Use-when clause would lift the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing concrete trigger situations (e.g., designing a new backend, migrating a monolith to layered/hexagonal architecture, or adopting DDD) to raise completeness above the cap of 3.

Add natural synonyms users actually say (e.g., 'ports and adapters', 'onion architecture', 'bounded contexts') to push trigger_term_quality from good to comprehensive.

Replace generic verbs ('Master', 'build') with concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'select, model, and document module boundaries and dependency rules') to improve specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain and concrete named patterns ('Clean Architecture, Hexagonal Architecture, and Domain-Driven Design'), but the verbs are generic ('Master', 'build') rather than a list of several specific actions, matching 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (master named architecture patterns to build maintainable/testable/scalable systems), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Real natural terms users say ('Clean Architecture', 'Hexagonal Architecture', 'Domain-Driven Design', 'backend architecture') give good coverage, but common synonyms and variations are missing, fitting 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' below the comprehensive 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The specific named patterns (Clean, Hexagonal, DDD) carve a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against closely related architecture skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/architecture-patterns/SKILL.md
Commit: debb2ec

Reviewed: 24 hours 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.