CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cs-backend-engineer

Backend-engineering orchestrator. Walks the 7 Matt Pocock forcing questions (read/write ratio + QPS, tenancy, sync vs async, data sensitivity, pattern, RPO/RTO, SLO), picks the language + pattern profile, forks into specialists (api-design-reviewer, database-designer, migration-architect, observability-designer, slo-architect — listed alphabetically; workflow order is dependency-driven) rather than reimplementing their scope. Forks own context. Invoke via /cs:backend-review or Agent({subagent_type:"cs-backend-engineer",...}).

64

Quality

81%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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.

A strongly operational skill body: executable commands, dependency-ordered workflows, and a pre-commit validation gate make it directly actionable, with disciplined token use. The gaps are small — no error-recovery feedback loops in the workflows and slightly awkward cross-repo reference paths.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with operational directives — fork orders, kill criteria, word-count limits, exact commands — and assumes Claude's competence rather than teaching basics. Minor trimmable padding exists (the Purpose rationale paragraph, parentheticals like 'listed alphabetically; workflow order is dependency-driven'), placing it at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the fully lean score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: a complete decision-engine invocation with real argument values ("python ../../engineering-team/skills/senior-backend/scripts/backend_decision_engine.py --team-size 8 --qps-p99 50 --read-write-ratio 20 ..."), concrete pre-commit gate commands, exact script/reference/profile paths, and quantified output constraints (≤ 200-word digest, three SLO targets, three approvers). It matches the fully-executable anchor covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Workflows are clearly sequenced with dependency-ordered forks ("slo-architect first — no SLO, no design"), named approver chains, a pre-commit validation gate (karpathy complexity_checker + diff_surgeon), and anti-pattern kill criteria. It falls short of the score-5 anchor because no workflow spells out an explicit feedback loop — what to do when the gate or a specialist review fails (fix, re-validate, re-fork) — leaving minor validation-recovery gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md works as an overview that points to one-level-deep materials under clearly labeled sections (Python Tools, Knowledge Bases, Templates/Profiles, References), with descriptive file names and stated 'When' conditions for tool use. It is not score 5 because navigation has minor friction: brace-expansion path lists ("references/{api_design_patterns,backend_security_practices,database_optimization_guide}.md") and deep cross-repo relative paths ("../../engineering-team/skills/senior-backend/...") make the referenced bundle slightly harder to discover than well-signaled links, and it relies on paths outside the skill's own bundle.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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.

A highly specific, well-differentiated description whose 'what' is comprehensive and concrete. Its main weakness is the missing 'when to use' guidance: the invocation syntax tells how to call it, not when a user needs it, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when picking a database or backend pattern, designing a new service, extracting a service from a monolith, or planning SLOs/DR targets' to satisfy the 'when' half of completeness.

Include natural user-side phrasings like 'choose a database', 'microservices vs monolith', or 'backend architecture review' alongside the domain jargon so trigger matching works on how users actually ask.

Trim the parenthetical 'listed alphabetically; workflow order is dependency-driven' from the description — that nuance belongs in the body, not the trigger text.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Walks the 7 Matt Pocock forcing questions (read/write ratio + QPS, tenancy, sync vs async, data sensitivity, pattern, RPO/RTO, SLO)", "picks the language + pattern profile", "forks into specialists (api-design-reviewer, database-designer, migration-architect, observability-designer, slo-architect)" — giving comprehensive, concrete coverage of what the skill does. It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage rather than the score-4 anchor, which reserves room for minor gaps this description does not have.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly and concretely answered (orchestrator that walks seven questions, picks a profile, forks specialists), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — "Invoke via /cs:backend-review" names a mechanism, not the situations in which to use the skill. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3: clear 'what' with 'when' only weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It contains strong domain keywords users would naturally say ("read/write ratio", "tenancy", "data sensitivity", "RPO/RTO", "SLO", "database", "backend"), but trigger guidance is phrased as invocation mechanics ("Invoke via /cs:backend-review or Agent({subagent_type:...})") rather than natural need-based phrases like 'choosing a database' or 'microservices vs monolith'. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing fits the score-4 anchor; it is not score 5 because common user-side synonyms for the decision scenarios are absent, and not score 3 because the domain vocabulary present is specific and varied.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The enumerated question list, the named specialists, and the unique slash command give it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against sibling skills. It clearly matches the score-5 anchor; it is not score 4 because nothing in the description broadly overlaps with other skills' trigger territory.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing, 3 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

.gemini/skills/cs-backend-engineer/SKILL.md

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.