CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

team-uidesign

Unified team skill for UI design team. Research -> design tokens -> audit -> implementation. Uses team-worker agent architecture with roles/ for domain logic. Coordinator orchestrates dual-track pipeline with GC loops and sync points. Triggers on "team ui design", "ui design team".

49

Quality

53%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/team-uidesign/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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 orchestration skill that effectively serves as a routing overview for a multi-agent UI design pipeline. Its strengths are strong progressive disclosure, concrete spawn templates, and clear role-to-file mappings. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit validation checkpoints and sequenced workflow steps for the coordinator's pipeline orchestration, and some sections (error handling, user commands) feel generic rather than deeply actionable.

Suggestions

Add an explicit numbered workflow sequence for the coordinator's orchestration flow (analyze → validate research → dispatch designers → checkpoint → spawn reviewers → etc.) with validation gates between stages.

Strengthen the GC loop section with a concrete feedback loop: what triggers a GC round, what the coordinator checks, and what constitutes 'pass' vs 'retry' — currently it's just 'max 2 rounds' with no process detail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is reasonably efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts, but includes some structural overhead that could be tightened — the ASCII architecture diagram, while helpful, is verbose, and some tables (like error handling) contain generic entries that don't add much value. The worker spawn template is detailed but justified given its complexity.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, executable guidance: the worker spawn template is copy-paste ready with clear variable placeholders, the role router logic is explicit (parse $ARGUMENTS for --role flag), CLI tools are specified with exact commands, and the message bus has a concrete function signature. The role registry table maps each role to its file path and prefix.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The architecture diagram and role registry clearly show the overall flow, and the spawn template defines worker lifecycle phases. However, validation checkpoints are largely absent — there's no explicit step-by-step sequence for the coordinator's analyze→dispatch→spawn flow, no verification between pipeline stages, and the GC loop mechanism is mentioned (max 2 rounds) but not clearly sequenced with feedback loops for error recovery.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Excellent progressive disclosure structure: SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview, with all domain logic delegated to one-level-deep references (roles/<role>/role.md for each worker, specs/*.md for standards and pipelines). References are well-signaled with relative links and organized in clear tables. The session directory structure provides a map of expected outputs without inlining the details.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

This description focuses heavily on internal architecture (agent roles, dual-track pipeline, GC loops, sync points) rather than user-facing capabilities, making it difficult for Claude to match against natural user requests. The trigger terms are artificial command phrases rather than natural language a user would employ. While it identifies a clear domain (UI design), it fails to articulate concrete outcomes or provide natural trigger coverage.

Suggestions

Replace artificial trigger phrases with natural user language: add terms like 'design system', 'design tokens', 'UI audit', 'component library', 'accessibility review', 'style guide', 'color palette', 'typography system'.

Remove internal implementation details (GC loops, sync points, team-worker agent architecture) and replace with concrete user-facing actions like 'Creates design token systems, audits UI components for consistency, generates implementation-ready design specifications'.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause describing real user scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user needs end-to-end UI design work including research, token creation, design auditing, or implementation guidance.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a domain (UI design) and mentions some actions (research, design tokens, audit, implementation), but these are listed as pipeline stages rather than concrete user-facing capabilities. Terms like 'GC loops', 'sync points', and 'team-worker agent architecture' are internal implementation details, not specific actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

It partially answers 'what' (UI design pipeline with research, tokens, audit, implementation) and has explicit trigger terms, but the 'when' guidance is extremely narrow and unnatural. The trigger clause exists but is so specific and artificial ('team ui design') that it barely functions as real usage guidance.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit triggers ('team ui design', 'ui design team') are unnatural phrases that users would rarely say. Natural terms like 'design system', 'UI components', 'style guide', 'color tokens', or 'accessibility audit' are entirely missing. The listed triggers feel like command keywords rather than natural language.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The very specific trigger phrases ('team ui design') reduce conflict risk, but the broad domain description ('UI design team') could overlap with individual design-related skills. The description doesn't clearly delineate boundaries from other UI or design skills.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

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.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
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.