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".
79
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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
77%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 does a good job of specifying concrete actions and providing an explicit trigger phrase. Its main weaknesses are limited natural trigger term coverage (relying heavily on the specific command 'team ux improve' rather than natural language variations) and moderate overlap risk with other frontend/UI debugging skills. The architectural details (team-worker agent, coordinator, pipeline) consume space that could be better used for additional trigger terms.
Suggestions
Add more natural trigger term variations users might say, such as 'UI bugs', 'broken buttons', 'user experience issues', 'interface not responding', 'usability problems'
Remove or minimize internal architecture details (team-worker agent, coordinator, pipeline) which don't help with skill selection and replace with user-facing trigger scenarios
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'discovers and fixes UI/UX interaction issues including unresponsive buttons, missing feedback, and state refresh problems.' Also describes the architecture: 'team-worker agent architecture with roles/ for domain logic.' | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('discovers and fixes UI/UX interaction issues including unresponsive buttons, missing feedback, and state refresh problems') and when ('Triggers on "team ux improve"'), providing an explicit trigger clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'UX improvement', 'unresponsive buttons', 'missing feedback', 'state refresh problems', and the explicit trigger 'team ux improve'. However, it misses common natural user phrases like 'UI bugs', 'broken buttons', 'user experience', 'interface issues', or 'usability problems' that users would naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The UX improvement focus is somewhat specific, but 'UI/UX interaction issues' could overlap with general frontend debugging or CSS styling skills. The explicit trigger phrase 'team ux improve' helps reduce conflict, but the broader description of fixing UI issues could still cause overlap with other frontend-related skills. | 2 / 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, CLI commands, and clear role routing. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops between pipeline stages, which is important for a multi-step process involving code modifications. Some minor verbosity could be trimmed but overall token efficiency is reasonable for the complexity of the system.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/gate criteria between pipeline stages (e.g., 'Coordinator verifies scan-report.md exists and contains at least one finding before spawning diagnoser')
Include a feedback loop for implementation failures — what happens when tester finds regressions? Document the retry/rollback path explicitly
| 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 error handling table includes obvious behaviors like 'Error with available command list'). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready Agent() spawn templates, specific CLI commands (ccw cli --mode analysis/write), exact file paths, session directory structures, and message bus function signatures. The role router logic is explicit and unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The pipeline stages (scan -> diagnose -> design -> implement -> test) are named and the coordinator/worker dispatch is clear, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints between stages, no feedback loops for error recovery between pipeline steps, and no clear criteria for when a stage passes to the next. For a multi-step orchestration involving code modifications, this is a gap. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure — SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to role specs (roles/<name>/role.md), pipeline specs, design standards, anti-patterns, and heuristics. Content is appropriately split between the overview and referenced files. | 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
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.