team-interactive-craft

Unified team skill for interactive component crafting. Vanilla JS + CSS interactive components with zero dependencies. Research -> interaction design -> build -> a11y test. Uses team-worker agent architecture. Triggers on "team interactive craft", "interactive component".

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/team-interactive-craft/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured and actionably concrete with a real spawn template and explicit constants, but its multi-agent workflow lacks explicit inter-phase validation and every referenced bundle file is absent, breaking progressive disclosure. Shipping the roles/ and specs/ files and adding validation checkpoints would materially raise the score.

Suggestions

Create the referenced bundle files (roles/coordinator|researcher|interaction-designer|builder|a11y-tester/role.md and specs/pipelines.md, specs/interaction-patterns.md, specs/vanilla-constraints.md) so the one-level-deep references resolve.

Add explicit validation checkpoints between pipeline phases (e.g., after research and after build) with verify->fix->retry feedback loops, since this is a batch/multi-agent operation.

Bind or document how placeholders like <skill_root>, <session-id>, and <task-description> are resolved so the spawn template is copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and mostly efficient — terse tables, an ASCII architecture diagram, and a spawn template — with little padding and no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, fitting the 'efficient with minor trim opportunities' anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides a concrete Agent() spawn template, specific CLI modes, an MCP call signature, and a session path layout, but unbound placeholders (<skill_root>, <session-id>) and references to files that do not exist leave minor gaps, matching 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The research->design->build->a11y-test sequence is present, but inter-phase validation checkpoints are implicit and batch worker spawning lacks explicit feedback loops; per the batch-operation cap this cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure and one-level-deep reference signaling are good, but the referenced bundle files (roles//role.md, specs/.md) do not exist, so the promised detail layer is missing and navigation breaks, fitting the 'some structure, references not fully realized' band.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly states what the skill does and when to use it with concrete constraints, but its trigger term coverage is thin and skill-name-centric. Expanding natural-sounding trigger phrases would lift completeness and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger phrases a user would actually say (e.g., 'web component', 'vanilla JS widget', 'no-dependency interactive component') alongside the skill name.

Name concrete output artifacts (e.g., '.js/.css component files, a11y audit report') in the 'what' portion to broaden capability coverage.

Drop or de-emphasize the literal skill name 'team interactive craft' as a trigger since users rarely invoke a skill by its internal name.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain plus several concrete actions and constraints ('Vanilla JS + CSS interactive components with zero dependencies', 'Research -> interaction design -> build -> a11y test'), with only minor coverage gaps, matching the anchor for listing several specific actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (interactive component crafting pipeline) and 'when' (explicit Triggers clause) are present, but the trigger guidance is narrow and could be more explicit, matching the anchor for having both with room for improvement.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Provides explicit triggers ('Triggers on "team interactive craft", "interactive component"') but only two phrases, one of which is the skill's own name, and misses natural synonyms like 'web component' or 'vanilla JS widget', fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The zero-dependency vanilla JS/CSS niche plus named triggers make it mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related component-build skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 8 missing, 5 deeper-than-1-level	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
Path: .claude/skills/team-interactive-craft/SKILL.md
Commit: 07491b0

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.