expo-dev-client

Build and distribute Expo development clients locally or via TestFlight

Quality

57%

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/expo-dev-client/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 action-dense and well-structured with executable commands across the main scenarios, but it lacks explicit validation checkpoints in its workflows and carries minor conciseness costs from restated config and a pinned version. Splitting advanced detail into reference files would improve progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add explicit verification steps to the build/install workflows, e.g. after submitting check 'eas build:view' for status, and after install confirm the dev client launches.

Remove the 'Key settings' bullet restatement (or trim it) and move the pinned '>= 16.0.1' version out of the inline config to avoid time-sensitive decay.

Replace placeholder paths ('./path/to/App.app', 'build.ipa') with concrete extraction/example values so commands are runnable as-is.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient with command-first sections, but the 'Key settings' bullets restate what the JSON already shows and the pinned 'version >= 16.0.1' is time-sensitive content outside a deprecated section; not a 4 due to these padding/version issues.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides many copy-paste-ready commands covering TestFlight, local builds, install, and troubleshooting; not a 5 because several examples use placeholders ('./path/to/App.app', 'build.ipa', 'build-*.tar.gz') that are not runnable as-is.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The TestFlight and install flows have a clear numbered sequence, but there are no explicit validation/verify checkpoints (e.g. confirm the build succeeded or the app launched); not a 4 because checkpoints are absent rather than merely minor.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and no bundle files; not a 5 because the skill exceeds 50 lines, so the simple-skill exception does not apply, and some inline config/troubleshooting could live in separate references.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 purpose and niche but omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, capping completeness and limiting trigger-term coverage. It is serviceable but would benefit from explicit invocation triggers and synonyms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when you need a custom Expo dev client for native code changes, TestFlight distribution, or local device builds.'

Include natural synonyms users say, such as 'EAS Build', 'dev client', and 'custom Expo Go', to improve trigger-term quality.

List a third concrete action (e.g. 'install on simulator or device') to lift specificity from 1-2 actions to several.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Expo development clients') with two concrete actions ('Build and distribute'), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; not a 4 because only two actions are listed.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' (build and distribute dev clients) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('Expo development clients', 'TestFlight', 'locally') but misses common variations like 'EAS', 'dev client', or 'custom Expo Go'; not a 4 because keyword coverage has clear gaps.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Expo-dev-client-plus-TestFlight niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general Expo/EAS skills; not a 5 because the triggers lack the explicit phrasing that would fully minimize conflict.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/expo-dev-client/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.