parallel-dev-cycle
Multi-agent parallel development cycle with requirement analysis, exploration planning, code development, and validation. Orchestration runs inline in main flow (no separate orchestrator agent). Supports continuous iteration with markdown progress documentation. Triggers on "parallel-dev-cycle".
52
41%
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 ./.codex/skills/parallel-dev-cycle/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
35%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 conveys a high-level understanding of a multi-agent parallel development workflow but lacks concrete specificity about what actions are performed and relies on a synthetic trigger keyword rather than natural user language. The phases listed (requirement analysis, exploration planning, code development, validation) are too abstract to clearly differentiate this skill, and the 'when' guidance is limited to a single artificial command rather than describing real user scenarios.
Suggestions
Replace 'Triggers on parallel-dev-cycle' with a natural 'Use when...' clause describing user scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to develop a feature using multiple parallel agents, split coding tasks, or run a structured multi-agent development workflow.'
Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'parallel coding', 'multi-agent development', 'split tasks across agents', 'concurrent implementation', or 'parallel feature development'.
Make the listed actions more concrete, e.g., 'Breaks requirements into independent subtasks, spawns parallel coding agents for each subtask, merges results, and runs validation tests' instead of abstract phase names.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (multi-agent parallel development) and lists some actions (requirement analysis, exploration planning, code development, validation), but these are somewhat abstract phases rather than concrete, specific actions like 'parses requirements into subtasks' or 'spawns parallel coding agents'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (multi-agent parallel development with listed phases), and there is a trigger clause ('Triggers on parallel-dev-cycle'), but the trigger is a synthetic command rather than a natural 'Use when...' clause describing user scenarios. The 'when' is technically present but extremely narrow and artificial. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only explicit trigger is the synthetic keyword 'parallel-dev-cycle', which is not something a user would naturally say. Terms like 'requirement analysis' and 'code development' are generic and wouldn't distinctly trigger this skill. Missing natural phrases like 'build feature in parallel', 'multi-agent coding', or 'split work across agents'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The concept of multi-agent parallel development is somewhat distinctive, but terms like 'requirement analysis', 'code development', and 'validation' are very broad and could overlap with many development-related skills. The synthetic trigger 'parallel-dev-cycle' helps reduce conflict but only if users know to use that exact phrase. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
47%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has excellent workflow clarity with well-defined phases, iteration loops, and validation checkpoints, but suffers severely from verbosity. The main SKILL.md contains extensive implementation details (discovery board schemas, state file formats, TodoWrite patterns, versioning protocols) that belong in the referenced phase documents, violating the progressive disclosure principle it partially implements. The content would benefit greatly from moving detailed schemas and protocols into sub-documents and keeping only the essential orchestration overview in the main file.
Suggestions
Move the Discovery Types table, state JSON schema, TodoWrite patterns, and versioning details into their respective phase reference documents or a dedicated reference file, keeping only a brief mention and link in the main SKILL.md.
Remove the ASCII architecture diagram and data flow diagram — the phase execution flow section already conveys the same information more concisely.
Consolidate the coordination protocol details (PHASE_RESULT format, feedback format, discovery board lifecycle) into a single referenced coordination.md file.
Trim the session structure tree to show only top-level directories with a note to see phase docs for full file details.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. Includes extensive ASCII diagrams, exhaustive state schemas, multiple TodoWrite pattern examples, full discovery type tables, and detailed coordination protocols that could be in referenced phase documents. Much of this (JSON schemas, NDJSON formats, error tables) belongs in the referenced sub-files, not the main SKILL.md. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete JSON schemas, file structures, and usage examples, but the actual execution logic is deferred to phase reference documents. The skill describes what should happen rather than providing directly executable orchestration steps. The usage examples at the bottom are helpful but the core workflow relies on external docs. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-phase workflow is clearly sequenced (Phase 1→2→3→4) with explicit iteration loops, validation checkpoints (Phase 3 detects issues and loops back), error recovery table, and a coordinator checklist with before/after phase checks. The feedback loop for iteration is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References phase documents and role definitions appropriately, but the main SKILL.md contains enormous amounts of detail that should live in those referenced files — full discovery type tables, state JSON schemas, TodoWrite patterns, versioning details, and coordination protocols are all inline rather than in the phase/reference docs they point to. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
0f8e801
- 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.