team-ux-improve
Unified team skill for UX improvement. Systematically discovers and fixes UI/UX interaction issues including unresponsive buttons, missing feedback, and state refresh problems. Uses team-worker agent architecture with roles/ for domain logic. Coordinator orchestrates pipeline, workers are team-worker agents. Triggers on "team ux improve".
62
73%
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 ./.claude/skills/team-ux-improve/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
75%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 adequately communicates what the skill does (discover and fix UI/UX interaction issues) and when to use it (via explicit trigger), giving it reasonable completeness. However, it spends valuable space on implementation architecture details (coordinator, workers, roles/) that don't help Claude decide when to select this skill, and the trigger term is an artificial command rather than natural user language. The specificity of listed issues (unresponsive buttons, missing feedback, state refresh) is helpful but could be expanded.
Suggestions
Replace or supplement the artificial trigger 'team ux improve' with natural language triggers users would actually say, such as 'fix UI bugs', 'improve user experience', 'buttons not working', 'UI feels broken'.
Remove implementation architecture details ('team-worker agent architecture', 'Coordinator orchestrates pipeline') and use that space for more user-facing capability descriptions or additional trigger scenarios.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (UI/UX) and lists some specific actions like 'discovers and fixes UI/UX interaction issues' with examples (unresponsive buttons, missing feedback, state refresh problems), but also includes implementation details about architecture that don't describe concrete user-facing capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (systematically discovers and fixes UI/UX interaction issues including specific examples) and 'when' (explicitly states 'Triggers on "team ux improve"'), though the trigger is a specific command rather than a broader set of conditions. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'UX improvement', 'unresponsive buttons', 'missing feedback', 'state refresh', but the explicit trigger 'team ux improve' is an artificial command rather than natural language a user would say. Missing natural variations like 'fix UI bugs', 'improve user experience', 'broken buttons', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around UX interaction issues with a specific trigger command and a distinct architecture (team-worker agents). It is unlikely to conflict with general coding or design skills due to its specificity around interaction bugs and the explicit trigger phrase. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
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 excels at progressive disclosure and actionability, providing concrete spawn templates and clear role routing. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit inter-stage validation checkpoints in the pipeline workflow — the skill describes what each stage produces but not how to verify outputs before advancing. The conciseness is adequate but the architecture diagram partially duplicates information in the role registry table.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/quality gates between pipeline stages (e.g., 'Coordinator validates scan-report.md contains at least one issue before spawning diagnoser') to improve workflow clarity.
Consider removing or simplifying the ASCII architecture diagram since the Role Registry table and Role Router section already convey the same information more precisely.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably efficient for a complex multi-agent orchestration skill, but includes some sections that could be tightened (e.g., the ASCII architecture diagram is somewhat redundant given the role registry table, and the user commands table is sparse). Overall it respects Claude's intelligence but has room for trimming. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete Agent() spawn template with exact parameters, specific CLI tool commands, exact file paths for role specs, session directory structure, and a clear role router decision logic. The guidance is copy-paste ready for orchestration. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The pipeline stages (scan -> diagnose -> design -> implement -> test) are named and the architecture is clear, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints between stages. The error handling table covers edge cases but lacks feedback loops for the main pipeline flow (e.g., what happens if scanner output is insufficient before passing to diagnoser). For a destructive/batch operation pipeline, this absence caps the score. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure structure: SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to roles/<name>/role.md files, specs/ directory for detailed standards, and a clear session directory layout. Navigation is straightforward with linked tables. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
5ff5e86
- 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.