tech-stack-evaluator
Technology stack evaluation and comparison with TCO analysis, security assessment, and ecosystem health scoring. Use when comparing frameworks, evaluating technology stacks, calculating total cost of ownership, assessing migration paths, or analyzing ecosystem viability.
80
57%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
1.26xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./engineering-team/tech-stack-evaluator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
92%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 is a strong description that clearly communicates specific capabilities and provides explicit trigger guidance via a 'Use when...' clause. The main weakness is moderate overlap risk with adjacent skills (e.g., general architecture advice, security auditing), though the combination of TCO analysis and ecosystem health scoring creates a reasonably distinct niche.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: technology stack evaluation, comparison, TCO analysis, security assessment, and ecosystem health scoring. These are distinct, well-defined capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (technology stack evaluation with TCO analysis, security assessment, ecosystem health scoring) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause listing five distinct trigger scenarios). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'comparing frameworks', 'technology stacks', 'total cost of ownership', 'migration paths', 'ecosystem viability'. These cover common variations of how users would phrase such requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While fairly specific to technology evaluation, terms like 'comparing frameworks' or 'security assessment' could overlap with general software architecture skills or security-focused skills. The combination of TCO + ecosystem health scoring helps distinguish it, but individual triggers could conflict. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a product brochure or README than an actionable skill file. It describes what the evaluator can do and lists scripts, but never provides concrete guidance on how to actually perform a technology evaluation—no scoring formulas, no example outputs, no step-by-step workflows. The critical content (algorithms, examples, workflows) is entirely deferred to reference files, leaving the main skill without enough substance to be independently useful.
Suggestions
Add a concrete end-to-end workflow showing the sequence of steps to perform a technology evaluation (e.g., 1. Define criteria → 2. Run stack_comparator.py with specific args → 3. Review output → 4. Run tco_calculator.py → 5. Synthesize results), with validation checkpoints.
Include at least one complete input/output example showing what a comparison request produces—e.g., a sample YAML input and the resulting scored comparison matrix or recommendation output.
Replace the 'Quick Start' natural language prompts with actual executable commands or concrete step-by-step instructions that Claude can follow, including expected output formats.
Inline the key scoring algorithm or formula from references/metrics.md so the skill is independently actionable without requiring reference file lookups for basic operations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary content like the capabilities table (which restates what the sections already cover), the 'When to Use / When NOT to Use' sections, and the analysis types section with token counts that don't add actionable value. The table of contents is also redundant for a file this size. However, it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill lacks concrete, executable guidance. The 'Quick Start' examples are just natural language prompts, not actionable steps. The scripts section only shows --help commands without demonstrating actual usage with expected outputs. There are no executable code examples, no output formats shown, and no concrete scoring algorithms or formulas—those are deferred to references. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no clear multi-step workflow for performing an evaluation. The skill lists capabilities and scripts but never sequences them into a coherent process (e.g., 'first gather inputs, then run comparison, then validate scores, then generate report'). There are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for what is inherently a multi-step analytical process. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill does reference external files (references/metrics.md, references/examples.md, references/workflows.md) which is good progressive disclosure. However, the main file itself contains too much surface-level content without enough substance—the actual actionable content (scoring algorithms, detailed examples, workflows) is all deferred to references, making the main file feel hollow rather than being a useful overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- alirezarezvani/claude-skills
- Commit
a96cc20
- 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.