cqrs-implementation

Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures. Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems.

Quality

64%

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-claude/skills/cqrs-implementation/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is cqrs-implementation in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

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.

A concise, well-structured overview with a clear use/do-not-use framing and an ordered workflow including a validation step. Its weaknesses are low actionability (only abstract imperatives, no concrete code or specifics) and a referenced playbook file that does not exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Make the Instructions actionable: add a concrete example for at least one step (e.g., a minimal command-handler / query-handler interface, or a read-model projection snippet) or name specific libraries/patterns to use, instead of only abstract verbs.

Add a validation feedback loop to the workflow: specify what to check (e.g., projection lag, event-order consistency), what a failure looks like, and the fix→re-validate step for read-model synchronization.

Create the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or change the reference to a file that exists), so the deferral to detailed patterns actually resolves.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean: terse bullet lists in Instructions, a useful do-not-use section, and no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is a 4 rather than 5 because the opening line "Comprehensive guide to implementing CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) patterns" mildly re-states what the title and description already convey, and the Use-when list overlaps the description's triggers.	4 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level imperatives ("Identify read/write workloads", "Define command and query models with clear boundaries", "Implement read model projections and synchronization") with no concrete code, commands, libraries, schemas, or specific implementation details. This matches the 2 anchor (high-level hints missing the specific steps to execute); it is above 1 because it instructs rather than merely describes, but below 3 because there is no executable or concrete guidance in the body itself.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear ordered sequence exists (identify → define → implement → validate) and includes an explicit 'Validate performance, recovery, and failure modes' step, but there is no concrete checkpoint or validate→fix→retry feedback loop. Because read-model synchronization/projections are failure-prone batch-like operations, the missing feedback loop caps this at 3 per the rubric's destructive/batch guidance.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is clean (Use-when, Do-not-use-when, Instructions, Resources) and the body defers detail to a single one-level reference, `resources/implementation-playbook.md`. However, no `resources/` directory or file actually exists in the bundle, so the clearly-signaled reference does not resolve — the navigation promise is unfulfilled, holding this at 3 rather than 4.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 well-formed description that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with natural trigger terms and a distinct architectural niche. The main gap is specificity: it frames several concrete scenarios as triggers rather than enumerating the skill's distinct capabilities.

Suggestions

Promote one or two scenarios from the 'Use when' clause into concrete capability verbs (e.g., 'Define command and query models, build read-model projections, synchronize read stores') so the 'what' reads as multiple distinct actions rather than a single implement-CQRS statement.

Add common synonyms to the trigger list (e.g., 'event sourcing', 'CQRS pattern', 'read replicas') to broaden natural-phrase coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation") and concrete sub-scenarios (separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, event-sourced systems), but these read as use-case triggers rather than a comprehensive list of distinct capabilities the skill performs. It sits at the 3 anchor ("names domain and 1-2 concrete actions") and is not a 4 because it does not enumerate several distinct actions the skill takes — the core action is a single 'implement CQRS'.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' ("Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures") and 'when' with a concrete "Use when ..." clause listing three triggers, matching the 5 anchor for clear what-and-when with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural developer-facing phrases appear — "separating read and write models", "optimizing query performance", "event-sourced systems", "scalable architectures" — which a user would plausibly say. It is a 4 rather than 5 because common synonyms/variants (e.g., "event sourcing" vs "event-sourced", "read replicas", "CQRS pattern") are not all covered.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	CQRS is a distinct architectural niche with specific triggers (read/write separation, query performance), giving minimal conflict risk. It is a 4 rather than 5 because the "event-sourced systems" trigger creates minor overlap with a dedicated event-sourcing skill.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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-claude/skills/cqrs-implementation/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 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.