cto-advisor

Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling engineering teams, evaluating technologies, making architecture decisions, establishing engineering metrics, or when user mentions CTO, tech debt, technical debt, team scaling, architecture decisions, technology evaluation, engineering metrics, DORA metrics, or technology strategy.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Quality

Content

77%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 is well-organized with strong workflows, real reference files, and concrete tools, but it leans on generic leadership platitudes that pad the token budget without adding skill-specific knowledge. Trimming the aphoristic advice would tighten it meaningfully.

Suggestions

Replace generic maxims (e.g., 'Documentation as a first-class citizen', 'Code review as mentoring, not gatekeeping') with skill-specific decision criteria or concrete thresholds Claude would not already know.

Convert abstract sections like 'Align technology investments with business priorities' into a concrete procedure or checklist, mirroring the actionable structure of the Tech Debt workflow.

Tighten the Culture and Core Responsibilities bullets to retain only non-obvious, decision-relevant guidance to reduce token cost.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body avoids over-explaining basic concepts, but is padded with aphoristic leadership maxims Claude already knows ('Documentation as a first-class citizen', 'Hire for the next stage, not the current one') that could be trimmed without losing value.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable guidance — invokable scripts, a `(Severity × Blast Radius) / Cost-to-fix` prioritization formula, a weighted build-vs-buy scoring table, and an ADR template — but large sections remain abstract advice without concrete execution.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	All three workflows (Tech Debt, ADR, Build vs Buy) use explicit numbered steps with validation checkpoints and checklists (e.g., 'Step 4 — Validate before presenting to stakeholders' with checkbox criteria).	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Body is a clear overview that signals one-level-deep references to real bundled files ('See references/engineering_metrics.md for DORA metrics') and invokes bundled scripts in Quick Start, with a Resources section summarizing each reference.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

95%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 strong and well-structured, explicitly stating both what the skill does and when to invoke it with a rich set of natural trigger terms and synonyms. Minor room to sharpen the leading 'guidance' phrasing into more concrete capability verbs.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several specific actions (assessing tech debt, scaling teams, evaluating technologies, making architecture decisions, establishing engineering metrics) but 'Technical leadership guidance' is somewhat abstract, leaving minor coverage gaps versus a fully comprehensive action list.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy') and when ('Use when assessing... or when user mentions CTO, tech debt...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms ('tech debt' and 'technical debt') plus specialist terms like 'CTO' and 'DORA metrics' that a user would naturally say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear CTO/technical-leadership niche anchored by distinct triggers (CTO, DORA metrics, tech debt) that minimize overlap with adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: c-level-advisor/skills/cto-advisor/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~12 hours 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.