CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ddd-context-mapping

Map relationships between bounded contexts and define integration contracts using DDD context mapping patterns.

Quality

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/ddd-context-mapping/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 an exemplar of lean, well-structured progressive disclosure with a genuine one-level reference, and the instruction sequence is coherent. Its weaknesses are mid-level actionability and missing validation checkpoints: steps tell what to produce but not how concretely, and nothing instructs Claude to verify the resulting map (e.g., every pair has an owner and a failure mode).

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation step, e.g. '5. Verify every context pair has a named contract owner, a chosen pattern, and a documented failure mode before presenting the map.'

Inline a small example of the output (a 2-3 row relationship map or one ACL decision) so the abstract steps like 'Define translation rules' become concrete.

Name the specific relationship patterns to consider in the body (or point to the reference's pattern list at the choose-patterns step) so step 2 is executable without prior recall.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~40-line body is lean and assumes Claude's DDD knowledge: no background concepts, no padded sections, and each section (use/do-not-use, instructions, outputs, limitations) earns its tokens.

5 / 5

Actionability

Numbered steps ('List all context pairs and dependency direction', 'Choose relationship patterns per pair') plus a real reference with a mapping template and ACL checklist give some concrete guidance, but steps like 'Define translation rules and ownership boundaries' remain high-level with no inline example of the decisions or output format, so it is incomplete rather than mostly executable.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A coherent four-step sequence is present, but there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., reviewing the finished map for coupling risks or verifying each contract has an owner), matching the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing' anchor rather than the level-4 anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, well-sectioned, and its only reference ('If detailed mapping structures are needed, open references/context-map-patterns.md') is clearly signaled, one level deep, exists on disk, and correctly holds the detail (pattern catalog, mapping template, ACL checklist).

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 states a clear, third-person 'what' with a well-defined DDD niche, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and lacks common synonym trigger terms, leaving it solidly mid-range. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with terms like context map, anti-corruption layer, and service boundaries would raise both completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when integrating bounded contexts, designing an anti-corruption layer (ACL), or defining contracts between services.'

Include natural synonym trigger terms such as 'context map', 'anti-corruption layer', 'ACL', and 'service boundaries' so users' phrasing matches the description.

Name one more concrete capability (e.g. assigning upstream/downstream ownership) to broaden action coverage beyond the current two verbs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('DDD context mapping', 'bounded contexts') and two concrete actions ('Map relationships', 'define integration contracts'), matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor; it is not 4 because coverage is not several specific actions (no ACL, ownership, or upstream/downstream framing).

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (map context relationships, define integration contracts) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'bounded contexts', 'integration contracts', and 'DDD context mapping' are relevant, but common variations users would naturally say are missing ('context map', 'anti-corruption layer', 'ACL', 'service boundaries'), so it fits the 'some relevant keywords but missing synonyms' anchor rather than good coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

DDD context mapping is a clear niche with distinct triggers and low conflict risk; it is not 5 because 'integration contracts' could still overlap with generic API/contract design skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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

skills/ddd-context-mapping/SKILL.md

Revision

64adc55

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation

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.

Claim skill