clanker
Deploy ERC20 tokens with Uniswap V4 pools on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum
73
67%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./src/skills/bundled/clanker/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
54%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 highly distinctive and uses excellent domain-specific trigger terms that would naturally match user queries about deploying tokens on Uniswap V4. However, it lacks a 'Use when...' clause and could be more specific about the concrete actions it performs beyond just 'deploy'. Adding explicit trigger guidance and expanding the list of capabilities would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to deploy a new ERC20 token, create a Uniswap V4 liquidity pool, or launch a token on Base, Ethereum, or Arbitrum.'
Expand the list of specific actions, e.g., 'Deploy ERC20 tokens, configure Uniswap V4 liquidity pools, set initial token supply and parameters, and manage pool deployment on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (ERC20 tokens, Uniswap V4, blockchain deployment) and a couple of actions (deploy, pools), but doesn't list comprehensive specific actions like configuring liquidity, setting token parameters, or managing pool creation steps. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (deploy ERC20 tokens with Uniswap V4 pools) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also thin, so this scores 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes highly specific natural keywords users would say: 'ERC20', 'Uniswap V4', 'deploy', 'pools', 'Base', 'Ethereum', 'Arbitrum'. These are exactly the terms a user working in DeFi/crypto would use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very clear niche combining ERC20 deployment with Uniswap V4 pools on specific chains. Highly unlikely to conflict with other skills given the specificity of the blockchain/DeFi domain and named protocols. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
79%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill with strong actionability through concrete CLI examples and comprehensive option documentation. Its main weakness is the lack of an explicit multi-step deployment workflow with validation checkpoints, which is important given that token deployment involves irreversible financial transactions. The content organization is good but could benefit from separating reference material from the core workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered deployment workflow with validation steps: simulate → review simulation output → deploy → verify contract address → test interactions, with error recovery guidance at each step.
Consider separating the options reference table and chain/fee details into a linked reference file to keep the main skill focused on the deployment workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and well-structured. It avoids explaining what ERC20 tokens, Uniswap, or IPFS are, and every section delivers information Claude wouldn't already know (specific CLI syntax, option flags, chain IDs, fee structures). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI commands with multiple realistic examples covering simple, vesting, dev-buy, and full-config scenarios. Options are clearly documented with specific value formats. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The simulate-before-deploy best practice is mentioned but not integrated into a formal workflow with validation checkpoints. For a destructive financial operation (deploying tokens with real ETH), there should be an explicit workflow: simulate → verify output → deploy → verify contract → claim. Missing feedback loops for error recovery cap this at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but everything is inline in a single file. The supported chains table, fee/protection details, and token configuration could be referenced out to keep the main skill leaner. However, the total length is moderate enough that this is a minor issue. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
- alsk1992/CloddsBot
- Commit
e71a5f6
- 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.