CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cloud-architect

Expert cloud architect specializing in AWS/Azure/GCP multi-cloud infrastructure design, advanced IaC (Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK), FinOps cost optimization, and modern architectural patterns.

47

1.00x
Quality

20%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.00x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/cloud-architect/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is cloud-architect in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

7%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 persona description or job posting rather than an actionable skill document. It is overwhelmingly verbose, listing hundreds of technologies and concepts Claude already knows, while providing zero concrete code, commands, or executable guidance. The content would need a fundamental restructuring to become a useful skill—replacing capability lists with specific templates, IaC code examples, decision frameworks, and validation workflows.

Suggestions

Replace the extensive capability lists with 2-3 concrete, executable examples (e.g., a Terraform module template, a cost estimation workflow with specific commands, a security review checklist with pass/fail criteria).

Remove 'Behavioral Traits', 'Knowledge Base', and 'Example Interactions' sections entirely—these describe Claude's persona rather than providing actionable instructions.

Add explicit validation workflows for key tasks like IaC deployment (e.g., 'terraform plan -> review -> terraform apply -> verify with aws cli commands') with error recovery steps.

Move the service/tool catalogs to a reference file and keep the main skill focused on decision frameworks and step-by-step procedures for common cloud architecture tasks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose with extensive lists of technologies, services, and concepts that Claude already knows. The 'Capabilities' section is essentially a catalog of cloud services and tools that adds no actionable value. 'Behavioral Traits' and 'Knowledge Base' sections describe Claude's persona rather than providing instructions. Most of this content is padding.

1 / 3

Actionability

No concrete code examples, commands, or executable guidance anywhere. The content is entirely descriptive—listing capabilities, behavioral traits, and example prompts rather than providing specific steps, templates, or code snippets. The 'Response Approach' is a vague 8-step process with no concrete implementation details.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 'Response Approach' lists 8 high-level steps but they are abstract and lack any validation checkpoints, feedback loops, or concrete sequencing. For a skill involving infrastructure design and IaC, there are no verification steps for destructive operations, no validation commands, and no error recovery guidance.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

There is a single reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed examples, which is a good signal. However, the massive inline content (capabilities lists, behavioral traits, knowledge base) should be split into separate reference files rather than bloating the main skill file. The structure has headers but the organization is poor for a skill document.

2 / 3

Total

5

/

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 like a professional title or resume summary rather than a functional skill description. While it names relevant technologies and domains, it lacks concrete actions (what it actually does) and entirely omits trigger guidance (when Claude should select it). The use of 'Expert cloud architect specializing in...' is first-person/identity framing rather than third-person action-oriented language.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about cloud infrastructure, Terraform configurations, cloud cost optimization, or multi-cloud architecture design.'

Replace the identity-framing ('Expert cloud architect specializing in') with concrete action verbs in third person, e.g., 'Designs multi-cloud infrastructure across AWS/Azure/GCP, writes and reviews Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK configurations, optimizes cloud spending with FinOps practices.'

Expand trigger terms to include common user phrases like 'cloud deployment', 'infrastructure as code', '.tf files', 'cloud costs', 'cloud migration', 'serverless', and specific service names users might mention.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names domains (AWS/Azure/GCP, Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK, FinOps) and some actions (infrastructure design, cost optimization), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions—it reads more like a resume headline than a list of specific capabilities like 'provision VPCs, write Terraform modules, estimate cloud costs'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes 'what' at a high level but completely lacks any 'when should Claude use it' guidance—there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause should cap completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also somewhat vague, this scores a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords like AWS, Azure, GCP, Terraform, OpenTofu, CDK, FinOps, and 'multi-cloud' that users might naturally say. However, it misses common variations like 'cloud deployment', 'infrastructure as code', 'cloud costs', 'serverless', 'EC2', 'S3', or file extensions like '.tf'. Coverage is decent but not comprehensive.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-cloud and IaC focus with specific tool names (Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK) provides some distinctiveness, but 'modern architectural patterns' is very broad and could overlap with general software architecture skills. The lack of explicit trigger boundaries increases conflict risk.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.