expo-dev-client

Build and distribute Expo development clients locally or via TestFlight

Quality

61%

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/expo-dev-client/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

68%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 actionable and well-structured with concrete commands throughout, but build/submit workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints, which caps workflow clarity. A few placeholders and minor restating of config keep conciseness and actionability just short of full marks.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint before submit, e.g. run 'eas build:view' to confirm the build succeeded before 'eas build ... --submit', and verify the .ipa/.apk exists before install commands.

Replace vague placeholders ('./path/to/App.app', 'build.ipa') with concrete example paths or a note on locating the actual output file.

Trim the 'Key settings' bullets and 'This will:' enumeration that restate the JSON and the command's obvious effects.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean commands with minimal over-explanation and does not re-explain what Expo/EAS is. Not a 5 because the 'Key settings' bullets restate the JSON config and the 'This will:' enumeration explains steps that are largely self-evident.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands for the common cases (e.g. 'eas build -p ios --profile development --submit', 'adb install build.apk'). Not a 5 because some install commands use unsubstituted placeholders like './path/to/App.app' and 'build.ipa'.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Sequences are present (build → submit → TestFlight email → install), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints before submitting or installing, and cloud build/submit is a batch operation — missing validation caps this at 3. Not a 4 because checkpoints are absent rather than merely minor-gapped.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections (EAS Configuration, Building for TestFlight, Building Locally, Installing, Troubleshooting) with no nested references and no bundle files to navigate. Not a 5 because the doc exceeds 50 lines and some content (e.g. Troubleshooting, install steps) could arguably live in separate reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 clearly states what the skill does and targets a distinct niche, but omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and lacks common trigger synonyms like 'dev client' or 'EAS'. Adding an explicit trigger clause would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Append a trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when you need a custom Expo dev client for native code, widgets, or modules not in Expo Go, or when distributing a dev build via TestFlight.'

Add natural synonyms users say: 'dev client', 'EAS Build', 'custom Expo Go', 'development build'.

Mention the key trigger condition (custom native code) directly in the description to sharpen distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Expo development clients') and two concrete actions ('Build and distribute') with delivery channels ('locally or via TestFlight'), but coverage is not comprehensive. Not a 4 because only two actions are listed with minor gaps rather than several specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' ('Build and distribute Expo development clients locally or via TestFlight') but no 'when' / 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the guideline. Not a 4 because the 'when' is entirely missing rather than present-but-imprecise.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('Expo', 'development clients', 'TestFlight') a user might say, but misses common variations like 'dev client', 'EAS Build', or 'custom Expo Go'. Not a 4 because several natural terms users would actually say are absent.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Expo development clients' is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, similar to 'Works with PDF and Word document files'. Not a 5 because it lacks an explicit trigger clause that the anchor-5 example includes.	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-claude/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.