CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

full-stack-orchestration-full-stack-feature

Use when working with full stack orchestration full stack feature

36

Quality

33%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/full-stack-orchestration-full-stack-feature/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is full-stack-orchestration-full-stack-feature in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

46%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 content lays out a genuinely sequenced, multi-phase orchestration workflow with concrete subagent prompts, but it is padded with conceptual explanation, lacks explicit validation feedback loops for its destructive operations, and relies on a broken external reference.

Suggestions

Fix or remove the broken reference: the body points to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' but no 'resources/' directory or file exists — either create the file under a real 'references/' path or drop the pointer.

Add explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g. 'Only proceed to Phase 2 when API contracts from Phase 1 validate') with a fix-and-retry loop, especially before DB migrations and deployment.

Trim the 'Extended thinking' paragraph and the generic Instructions bullets, which restate concepts (API-first, contract-driven, observability) Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly structured and content-dense (phased subagent prompts), but the bracketed 'Extended thinking' paragraph and generic Instructions bullets ('Clarify goals...', 'Apply relevant best practices...') explain concepts Claude already knows, fitting 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'; not a 2 because the bulk is substantive rather than padded throughout.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete subagent_type values, copy-pasteable prompt templates, and expected outputs provide real guidance, but it references a nonexistent 'resources/implementation-playbook.md', leaves $ARGUMENTS undefined until the final line, and uses subagent_type values that may not exist — 'missing key details' that keep it below a 4.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 4-phase / 12-step sequence with testing and security-audit phases as implicit checkpoints exists, but there are no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops, and the workflow drives destructive/batch operations (DB migrations, deployment), which caps workflow_clarity at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a monolithic inline wall of orchestration prompts, and its single external reference is broken — it points to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' in a 'resources/' directory that does not exist (no references/scripts/assets bundles are present), matching 'references are buried' and content that belongs in separate files is inlined.

2 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

20%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 is a vague trigger-only sentence with no statement of capability and an unnatural, buzzword-repeated noun phrase. It fails to answer what the skill does and only weakly answers when to use it.

Suggestions

Add a concrete 'what' clause naming specific actions the skill performs, e.g. 'Orchestrates backend, frontend, and infrastructure subagents to deliver a full-stack feature end-to-end.'

Replace the doubled 'full stack orchestration full stack feature' with natural trigger phrasing a user would actually say, e.g. 'Use when building or shipping a full-stack feature across backend, frontend, and infra.'

Include concrete trigger keywords/synonyms (e.g. 'full-stack feature', 'API-first development', 'feature rollout') to improve distinctiveness and trigger-term quality.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names no concrete actions at all — it is only a 'when' clause ('Use when working with full stack orchestration full stack feature'), which is pure abstract language with zero action verbs, matching the score-1 anchor 'Entirely vague; no concrete actions.'

1 / 5

Completeness

Only a 'when' is present with no 'what does this do', and the 'when' itself is vague — directly matching the score-2 anchor example 'Use when working with documents'; not a 3 because there is no clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It contains one or two generic keywords ('full stack', 'feature') but the doubled 'full stack orchestration full stack feature' phrasing is unnatural and not what a user would say, fitting 'one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'; not a 1 because recognizable terms are present.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'full stack orchestration full stack feature' is a very broad domain with high overlap risk against general full-stack development skills, matching 'Very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills'; not a 3 because nothing narrows the niche.

2 / 5

Total

7

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.