app-builder
Main application building orchestrator. Creates full-stack applications from natural language requests. Determines project type, selects tech stack, coordinates agents.
64
Quality
52%
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 ./docs/v19.7/configuration/agent/skills_external/antigravity-awesome-skills-main/skills/app-builder/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 communicates the high-level purpose of orchestrating application creation but lacks the explicit trigger guidance essential for skill selection. It uses appropriate third-person voice and mentions key capabilities, but the absence of a 'Use when...' clause and limited natural trigger terms significantly weaken its effectiveness for Claude's skill selection process.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios like 'when user wants to build a new app', 'create a project from scratch', 'scaffold an application', or 'start a new codebase'
Include natural user phrases and keywords such as 'build an app', 'create a website', 'new React/Node/Python project', 'start from scratch', 'generate boilerplate'
Specify concrete application types supported (web apps, APIs, CLI tools) and example tech stacks to improve specificity and distinctiveness
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (full-stack applications) and some actions (determines project type, selects tech stack, coordinates agents), but lacks concrete specifics about what types of applications, which tech stacks, or what coordination entails. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2, and this has no 'when' component at all. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'full-stack applications' and 'natural language requests', but missing common user phrases like 'build an app', 'create a website', 'new project', 'scaffold', or specific framework names users might mention. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'orchestrator' and 'coordinates agents' provides some distinction, but 'full-stack applications' and 'natural language requests' are broad enough to potentially conflict with other code generation or project scaffolding skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 skill excels at organization and token efficiency, serving as a clean orchestration hub with excellent navigation to detailed resources. However, it lacks concrete executable guidance and validation checkpoints that would be critical for coordinating multi-agent workflows involving potentially destructive or complex operations.
Suggestions
Add concrete commands or code snippets showing how to invoke each agent (e.g., actual CLI commands or function calls)
Include validation checkpoints in the workflow example (e.g., 'Verify schema before proceeding to API routes', 'Run tests after each agent completes')
Add a brief error handling section showing what to do when an agent fails or produces invalid output
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Uses tables for quick scanning, no unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude knows. Every section serves a clear purpose with minimal prose. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides good structural guidance with clear file references and template links, but lacks executable code or concrete commands. The usage example shows a process outline but not actual implementation steps or commands to run. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The usage example shows a numbered sequence, but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For an orchestrator coordinating multiple agents on potentially complex operations, there's no explicit error handling or verification steps between stages. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with clear one-level-deep references. The selective reading rule table, templates table, and related agents table all provide well-signaled navigation to detailed content in separate 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
- duclm1x1/Dive-Ai
- Commit
20ba150
- 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.