backend-dev-guidelines

You are a senior backend engineer operating production-grade services under strict architectural and reliability constraints. Use when routes, controllers, services, repositories, express middleware, or prisma database access.

Quality

59%

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/backend-dev-guidelines/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

64%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 is a solid architectural guidelines skill with strong actionability through concrete TypeScript examples and clear anti-pattern contrasts. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (BFRI framework, motivational framing, duplicate 'When to Use' sections) and a monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed reference material into separate files. The workflow lacks explicit feedback loops for validation during development.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicate 'When to Use' section and the 'Skill Status' footer—these waste tokens without adding actionable guidance.

Consider whether the BFRI scoring system (Section 1) earns its ~30 lines; Claude can assess risk without a formal formula. If kept, move it to a separate BFRI.md reference file.

Add an explicit development workflow sequence with validation checkpoints, e.g., '1. Write service logic → 2. Write unit tests → 3. Run tests → 4. If failing, fix → 5. Write route + integration test → 6. Run full suite → 7. Commit'.

Split detailed sections (testing examples, Prisma rules, directory structure) into referenced files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main skill's token footprint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill contains some unnecessary framing ('Your goal is to build predictable, observable...', 'This skill defines how backend code must be written, not merely suggestions') and the BFRI section adds significant weight for a scoring system Claude could derive. However, the code examples are lean and the tables are efficient. The 'Skill Status' section and duplicate 'When to Use' sections are wasteful.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides concrete, executable TypeScript code examples for every major pattern (routes, controllers, services, repositories, validation, error handling, DI). The anti-patterns section uses clear ❌/✅ contrasts with real code. Commands and patterns are copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The layered architecture flow (Routes → Controllers → Services → Repositories → Database) is clearly sequenced, and the validation checklist at the end provides a checkpoint. However, there are no explicit validation/verification steps within the development workflow itself—no 'run tests before committing' sequence, no feedback loops for error recovery when things fail during implementation.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with numbered sections and tables, but it's a monolithic document (~200+ lines) that could benefit from splitting detailed sections (e.g., BFRI, testing discipline, Prisma rules) into separate reference files. The 'Integration With Other Skills' section references other skills but the main content is all inline.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

54%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 has strong trigger terms in its 'Use when' clause, listing specific backend concepts like Express middleware and Prisma. However, it fails to describe concrete actions or capabilities, instead relying on a vague persona statement ('senior backend engineer operating production-grade services'). The 'what it does' portion needs significant improvement with specific, actionable verbs.

Suggestions

Replace the persona statement with concrete actions, e.g., 'Creates and modifies Express routes, controllers, service layers, and repository patterns. Configures middleware and manages Prisma database schemas and queries.'

Add more specificity to the 'Use when' clause with common variations like 'API endpoints', 'database migrations', 'ORM queries', 'REST API', or 'backend Node.js'.

Use third-person action verbs instead of the second-person persona framing ('You are a senior backend engineer') — e.g., 'Implements backend services following layered architecture patterns.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description says 'operating production-grade services under strict architectural and reliability constraints' which is vague and abstract. It names no concrete actions — no verbs like 'create routes', 'write middleware', 'define schemas', etc. It describes a persona rather than capabilities.	1 / 3
Completeness	It has an explicit 'Use when' clause with trigger terms (the 'when'), but the 'what does this do' portion is extremely weak — it only describes a persona ('senior backend engineer operating production-grade services') rather than concrete actions or capabilities.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when' clause includes natural, specific keywords users would encounter: 'routes', 'controllers', 'services', 'repositories', 'express middleware', 'prisma database access'. These are terms developers would naturally use when working on backend Node.js/Express projects.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The mention of Express, Prisma, routes, controllers, and repositories narrows the scope to a specific tech stack, which helps. However, 'services' and 'repositories' are generic enough to overlap with other backend or architecture skills, and the persona description is broad.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/backend-dev-guidelines/SKILL.md
Commit: fbdfd63

Reviewed: 2 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.