feature-flags
Use when feature flag tests fail, flags need updating, understanding @gate pragmas, debugging channel-specific test failures, or adding new flags to React.
86
80%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.66xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/feature-flags/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
72%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 excels at trigger term coverage and distinctiveness, clearly targeting React feature flag workflows with specific terminology like '@gate pragmas' and 'channel-specific test failures.' However, it is structured entirely as a 'Use when...' clause without explaining what the skill actually does, leaving the 'what' half of completeness unaddressed. Adding concrete capability statements would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add a 'what it does' statement before the 'Use when' clause, e.g., 'Diagnoses and fixes React feature flag configurations, updates @gate pragma annotations, and resolves channel-specific test failures.'
Include specific outputs or actions the skill performs, such as 'modifies flag definitions', 'updates test channel configurations', or 'explains gate pragma syntax'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (feature flags in React) and mentions several actions like updating flags, debugging test failures, and adding new flags, but these are framed more as trigger scenarios than concrete actions the skill performs. It doesn't clearly state what the skill actually does (e.g., 'modifies flag configurations', 'generates gate pragma annotations'). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description is essentially all 'when' triggers ('Use when...') but lacks a clear 'what does this do' component. There is no explanation of what the skill actually performs or produces — it only describes when to invoke it. Per the rubric, a missing 'what' component caps this at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'feature flag', 'flags', '@gate pragmas', 'channel-specific test failures', 'React'. These cover multiple variations of how a developer would describe problems in this domain. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description targets a very specific niche — React feature flags, @gate pragmas, and channel-specific test failures. This is highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills, as the combination of React + feature flags + @gate pragmas is very narrow. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
87%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-crafted skill that efficiently covers React feature flags with concrete examples, clear organization, and appropriate cross-references. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit validation steps in the multi-step workflows (adding flags, debugging failures), which could lead to missed steps in fork files. Overall it's concise, actionable, and well-structured for its purpose.
Suggestions
Add a validation step to 'Adding a New Flag' workflow, e.g., 'Run `/flags --diff` to verify the flag appears in all channels' or 'Run `/test www <pattern>` and `/test www variant false <pattern>` to confirm both variants pass'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section is lean and purposeful. No unnecessary explanations of what feature flags are or how React works generally. The table format for flag files is efficient, and examples are minimal but sufficient. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable code examples for @gate pragma and gate() inline usage, specific file paths, exact command syntax for testing variants, and a clear step-by-step process for adding new flags. The common mistakes section adds practical, specific guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Adding a New Flag' section has clear steps but lacks validation checkpoints - there's no step to verify the flag was added correctly to all fork files or to run tests after adding. The 'Debugging Channel-Specific Failures' workflow is sequential but doesn't include explicit feedback loops for error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, appropriately references the `flags` skill for detailed command options rather than inlining that content, and keeps the skill focused on its core purpose. The structure allows quick scanning via headers and tables. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- facebook/react
- Commit
705268d
- 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.