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 identifies a specific workflow pattern (multi-agent parallel development) and lists its phases, but relies on abstract phase names rather than concrete actions. The trigger mechanism is an artificial command keyword rather than natural language terms users would actually say, and the description lacks a proper 'Use when...' clause with realistic usage scenarios.
Suggestions
Replace 'Triggers on parallel-dev-cycle' with a natural 'Use when...' clause describing scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to implement a complex feature across multiple files simultaneously, or asks for parallel development, multi-agent coding, or concurrent implementation.'
Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'implement feature', 'build in parallel', 'develop multiple components', 'complex feature implementation', 'split work across agents'.
Make the capability descriptions more concrete, e.g., 'Splits requirements into independent subtasks, spawns parallel coding agents for each subtask, validates outputs against requirements, and documents progress in markdown files.'
| 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 phases listed), and there is a trigger mention ('Triggers on parallel-dev-cycle'), but this is a synthetic command rather than a genuine 'Use when...' clause describing scenarios. The when guidance is minimal and not scenario-based. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only explicit trigger is the artificial keyword 'parallel-dev-cycle', which is not something a user would naturally say. It lacks natural language triggers like 'build this feature', 'implement in parallel', 'develop multiple components', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is somewhat distinctive due to the multi-agent parallel development niche and the specific trigger keyword, but terms like 'code development', 'requirement analysis', and 'validation' could overlap with many other development-related skills. | 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 error recovery, but suffers significantly from verbosity. The SKILL.md tries to be both an overview and a comprehensive reference, resulting in a monolithic document that duplicates information across sections (e.g., data flow described in text, diagram, and tables). Content like the discovery types table, full state schema, and versioning protocol should be pushed into the referenced phase/role documents.
Suggestions
Move the discovery types table, full state JSON schema, versioning protocol, and coordination protocol details into the referenced phase documents (phases/02-agent-execution.md, etc.) and keep only a brief summary in SKILL.md
Remove the redundant data flow section — the execution flow section already covers the same information with more detail
Eliminate the ASCII architecture diagram or the execution flow section — both convey the same phase sequence; pick one representation
Trim the progress tracking section to a single example showing the pattern rather than exhaustive examples for every phase transition
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. Contains extensive ASCII diagrams, redundant explanations of the same concepts (data flow repeated in multiple sections), detailed JSON schemas, and tables that could be in referenced phase documents. Much of this content (discovery types table, full state JSON schema, versioning details) belongs in the referenced phase files, not the main SKILL.md. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete usage examples, JSON schemas, and specific file paths. However, the actual execution logic relies heavily on phase reference documents (phases/01-04) which are not provided. The progress tracking code uses JavaScript-style function calls that are illustrative but the core agent spawning/coordination mechanics are described abstractly rather than with executable specifics. | 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 handling table, and a coordinator checklist with before/after phase verification steps. The feedback loop for iteration (issues found → send feedback → re-execute Phase 2) is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References phase documents (phases/01-04) and role definitions (roles/) appropriately, but the main SKILL.md contains massive amounts of detail that should live in those referenced files — the full discovery types table, complete state JSON schema, versioning protocol, coordination protocol details, and data flow diagrams all bloat the overview. The bundle files are not provided, so we cannot verify the references resolve, but the structure suggests poor content splitting. | 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
227244f
- 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.