architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture
15
0%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/antigravity-architect-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 essentially a title or role label rather than a functional skill description. It lacks any concrete actions, trigger terms, or usage guidance, making it nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select this skill from a pool of alternatives. It also uses an implied first/second person framing ('Master software architect') rather than describing what the skill does in third person.
Suggestions
Replace the role label with specific actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Designs system architectures, evaluates trade-offs between microservices and monoliths, creates architecture diagrams, and reviews code for architectural patterns.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about system design, microservices, design patterns, scalability, architecture reviews, or service decomposition.'
Narrow the scope to a distinct niche (e.g., 'cloud-native architecture' or 'distributed systems design') to reduce conflict risk with other general coding or engineering skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language ('Master software architect') with no concrete actions listed. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does—no verbs like 'designs', 'reviews', or 'generates'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. There is no 'Use when...' clause and no description of capabilities—just a vague title-like phrase. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 'Modern architecture' is overly generic and not a natural phrase users would say when seeking help. There are no specific trigger terms like 'microservices', 'system design', 'architecture diagram', 'design patterns', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Software architect' and 'modern architecture' are extremely broad and could overlap with any coding, design, or engineering skill. There is nothing to distinguish this from other development-related skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a persona description and knowledge inventory rather than an actionable skill. It enumerates hundreds of architecture concepts Claude already knows without providing any concrete guidance, templates, checklists, or executable examples that would actually change Claude's behavior. The content is extremely verbose while being simultaneously vague on the actual workflow.
Suggestions
Replace the massive 'Capabilities' and 'Knowledge Base' enumeration lists with a concise scope statement—Claude already knows these concepts. Focus only on project-specific patterns, conventions, or constraints that Claude wouldn't know by default.
Add concrete, actionable templates for architectural reviews, such as a specific ADR template, a review checklist with pass/fail criteria, or a structured output format (e.g., JSON schema for findings).
Provide at least one worked example showing an input (e.g., a code snippet or design description) and the expected architectural review output, so Claude knows the exact format and depth expected.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'Before recommending changes, verify: (1) you have the system context diagram or description, (2) you understand the non-functional requirements, (3) you have identified the bounded contexts involved.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with information Claude already knows. The 'Capabilities' section is a massive enumeration of architecture concepts, patterns, and technologies that Claude is already deeply familiar with. The 'Knowledge Base', 'Behavioral Traits', and 'Expert Purpose' sections add no actionable value—they describe Claude's persona rather than providing new instructions. This skill could be reduced by 80%+ without losing any useful guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, templates, or executable examples anywhere. The 'Instructions' section is four vague bullet points ('Gather system context', 'Evaluate architecture decisions'). The 'Example Interactions' are just sample prompts, not worked examples with inputs and outputs. There is nothing copy-paste ready or specific enough to change Claude's behavior. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step 'Instructions' workflow is extremely vague ('Gather system context, goals, and constraints' — how?). The 'Response Approach' lists 8 steps but they are abstract descriptions without validation checkpoints, feedback loops, or concrete criteria for decision-making. No verification steps exist for any of the architectural review processes described. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All content is inline in a single massive document. The extensive capability lists could be split into reference files, but instead everything is dumped into one flat structure with no navigation aids beyond section headers. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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
- boisenoise/skills-collections
- Commit
e41e34a
- 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.