CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ralph-wiggum-v2

Autonomous TDD development loop with parallel agent swarm, category evolution, and convergence detection. Use when running autonomous game development, quality improvement loops, or comprehensive codebase reviews.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/ralph-wiggum-v2/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is ralph-wiggum-v2 in fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body delivers a genuinely executable orchestration spec: concrete schemas, explicit sequencing, TDD feedback loops, convergence counting, and final verification. Its weaknesses are redundancy (the workflow is stated twice and convergence criteria three times) and zero progressive disclosure — the large style/category lookup tables are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into reference files.

Suggestions

Move the seven Review Styles tables and the Game-Specific Categories catalogs into references/ (e.g. references/styles.md, references/categories.md) and link them from a short 'Review Styles: see references/styles.md' pointer, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.

Delete the Phase 1-5 'Workflow' section or the 'Iteration Loop' pseudocode block — they describe the same process — and state the convergence criteria once instead of in Phase 5, Hard Requirements, and steps 10-12.

Add the missing executable specifics: the actual Task-tool agent spawn invocation (prompt template + parameters) and the concrete commands for 'Run full test suite' and 'Verify game loads and plays' in Final Verification.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The prose is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the same workflow is described twice ("Phase 3: TDD Implementation Cycle" vs. step 8 of the Iteration Loop) and convergence criteria appear three times (Phase 5, "Hard Requirements", steps 10-12), so it could clearly be tightened. This fits 'mostly efficient but... could be tightened' better than the minor-trimming-only bar of a 4, though it is far from the padded over-explanation of a 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete artifacts abound: an invocable quick-start command, exact state file paths ("{project}/.ralph/state.json"), full JSON schemas for state/categories/agent output, a directory-to-category mapping, and a 12-step numbered loop. It is not a 5 because several operational steps remain unspecified — "Bootstrap categories from codebase structure if empty" beyond the one example mapping, "Spawn parallel review agents (use Task tool)" without the actual spawn invocation, and "Verify game loads and plays" / "Run full test suite" with no commands — leaving minor gaps in copy-paste executability.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is sequenced explicitly (Phases 1-5 plus a 12-step LOOP block) with genuine validation checkpoints and feedback loops: TDD's write-failing-test → fix → verify loop, "d. Run full test suite" after each fix, a consecutiveCleanIterations counter that resets to 0 on a dirty iteration, explicit convergence criteria, and a 6-step Final Verification. A Hard Requirements checklist is also provided. This matches the anchor for 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists' — the destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply since validation is thoroughly present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and everything is inlined in one ~275-line file; the seven review-style tables (~30 styles) and the game-specific category catalogs are pure lookup data that belong in a references file loaded only when spawning agents. Structure is good (clear section headers, coherent order), but 'content that should be separate is inline' with no references at all matches anchor 3; it is above a 2 because the file is well-organized rather than a monolithic wall, and below a 4 because nothing is split out.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

76%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A solid description that clearly states both capability and trigger context, with concrete named mechanisms and an explicit 'Use when' clause covering three scenarios. Its main weaknesses are jargon-leaning trigger terms ('quality improvement loops', 'category evolution') that users would not naturally say, and a generic 'codebase reviews' trigger that invites overlap with ordinary code-review skills.

Suggestions

Add natural-language synonyms to the trigger clause that users would actually type, e.g. "Use when the user asks for test-driven development, an autonomous dev/fix-it loop, or repeated code-quality iterations on a game project."

Qualify the "comprehensive codebase reviews" trigger to distinguish it from one-shot review requests, e.g. "iterative, multi-round codebase quality reviews" — reducing conflict with plain code-review skills.

Move internal jargon like "category evolution" out of the trigger-facing sentence; it describes a mechanism, not a user intent.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete capabilities — "Autonomous TDD development loop with parallel agent swarm, category evolution, and convergence detection" — naming four specific mechanisms rather than generic language. It falls short of a 5 because coverage has minor gaps (e.g., test-first fixing and state tracking implied by 'TDD' but not spelled out), and it is above a 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly named.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what it does ("Autonomous TDD development loop with parallel agent swarm, category evolution, and convergence detection") and when to use it ("Use when running autonomous game development, quality improvement loops, or comprehensive codebase reviews") with three concrete trigger scenarios. This matches the anchor 5 example structure (clear 'what' + explicit 'Use when...' with concrete trigger phrases) and exceeds anchor 4, where the 'when' would be only weakly specified.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases like "comprehensive codebase reviews" and "autonomous game development" are relevant, but terms such as "quality improvement loops" and "category evolution" are internal jargon users would not naturally say. Common variations users would actually utter — "test-driven development", "refactor loop", "improve code quality", "code review" — are missing, matching the anchor for 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the good-but-incomplete coverage of a 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of "autonomous TDD development loop with parallel agent swarm" plus the game-development framing is a clear niche, but the trigger "comprehensive codebase reviews" overlaps with generic code-review skills and could fire for ordinary review requests. This is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' — not the minimal conflict risk of a 5, but well above the broad overlap of a 3.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz

Path

.claude/skills/ralph-wiggum-v2/SKILL.md

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.