team-coordination

Multi-person projects - shared state, todo claiming, handoffs

Quality

24%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/team-coordination/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

22%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is too terse and vague to effectively guide skill selection. It reads as a list of loosely related concepts rather than a clear explanation of capabilities and triggers. It lacks concrete actions, explicit 'when to use' guidance, and sufficient natural language keywords for reliable matching.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when multiple people are collaborating on a project, claiming tasks, or handing off work to another contributor.'

Replace abstract noun phrases with concrete action descriptions, e.g., 'Manages shared project state across multiple contributors, enables claiming and reassigning todos, and facilitates structured handoffs between team members.'

Include additional natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'collaboration', 'team project', 'assign tasks', 'coordinate work', or 'shared todos'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague, abstract language like 'shared state', 'todo claiming', and 'handoffs' without explaining concrete actions. It doesn't specify what the skill actually does (e.g., 'assigns tasks', 'tracks project status', 'manages transitions between contributors').	1 / 3
Completeness	The description only loosely addresses 'what' with a list of noun phrases and completely lacks any 'when should Claude use it' guidance. There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'handoffs', 'todo claiming', and 'multi-person projects' are somewhat relevant keywords a user might use, but common variations like 'collaboration', 'team tasks', 'assign work', 'shared workspace', or 'project coordination' are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The mention of 'multi-person projects' and 'todo claiming' provides some specificity, but 'shared state' and 'handoffs' are generic enough to overlap with general project management or task tracking skills.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is well-intentioned and covers team coordination comprehensively, but it is far too verbose for a skill file — the extensive templates, ASCII art, and example data bloat the token cost significantly. The workflow is reasonable but lacks validation/conflict-resolution mechanisms for what is inherently a concurrent-access problem. The content would benefit greatly from splitting templates into separate files and condensing the core protocol to essential rules and commands.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 60-70%: move all templates (handoff, standup, contributors, state.md) into separate reference files and link to them from a concise overview

Remove ASCII art boxes and replace with simple headers — they consume tokens without adding clarity for Claude

Add validation steps: e.g., a script or check that verifies state.md consistency before/after claiming todos, and explicit conflict resolution steps when two sessions touch the same files

Cut the example personas and sample data — Claude can generate appropriate examples from a brief format specification

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. The ASCII art boxes, extensive table templates, working hours ASCII diagrams, and detailed example data (Alice, Bob, Carol personas) consume enormous token budget. Much of this is template/boilerplate that Claude could generate from a brief description. The core coordination protocol could be expressed in ~50 lines.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete file structures, markdown templates, and a git hook script, which is good. However, much of the content is template examples rather than executable commands. The actual actions (claim a todo, update state) are just 'edit this file and push' — there's no automation, no scripts to run, just manual markdown editing. The git hook is a nice concrete touch but has a bug (md5 vs md5sum).	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Start/end session checklists are clear and well-sequenced. However, there are no validation checkpoints — no way to verify state consistency, no feedback loops for conflict detection beyond 'check state.md manually.' For a workflow involving shared mutable state files (destructive/concurrent operations), the lack of real validation or conflict resolution steps is a gap.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Everything is in one massive monolithic file with no references to external files for detailed content. The contributors template, handoff template, decision format, standup template, git hooks, and full example tables are all inline. These should be split into separate reference files with the SKILL.md providing just the overview and workflow.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: alinaqi/claude-bootstrap
Commit: d4ddb03

Reviewed: 4 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.