CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-check-architecture

Use when checking if code follows ARCHITECTURE.md patterns - runs automated conformance checks.

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 ./packs/astro/skills/review-check-architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

76%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.

A lean, highly actionable single-script skill with excellent token efficiency and clear section structure. Its gaps are in workflow precision: the module-scope argument is disconnected from the commands, and there are no rules for interpreting count-based results or next steps after failures.

Suggestions

Define PASS/FAIL criteria for count-based checks (e.g., 'check 7: FAIL if count > 0') and clarify inverted checks where PASS means zero grep matches.

Wire the $ARGUMENTS scope into the commands (e.g., substitute the module path for src/ or explicitly state the script always scans all of src/).

Add a brief next-step instruction for FAIL results (e.g., 'for each FAIL, list offending files and the ARCHITECTURE.md rule violated').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient: a one-line purpose statement, a scope line, and a single executable script with no concept explanations or padding — every token earns its place and it fully assumes Claude's competence.

5 / 5

Actionability

The 13-check bash script is concrete and copy-paste ready with a defined summary-table output, but count-based checks (7 and 9) emit bare 'wc -l' numbers with no pass criteria, and inverted-semantics checks (e.g., 'Services with try/catch' where PASS means zero grep hits) lack interpretation rules — minor gaps keeping it below fully-executable-with-complete-coverage.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The run-checks-then-report sequence is present and read-only (no destructive-operation cap applies), but the declared 'Scope: $ARGUMENTS' is never wired into the hardcoded src/ commands, and there is no guidance on what to do after a FAIL or how to convert counts into PASS/FAIL — checkpoints are missing or implicit.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~64-line body is organized into clear sections with the single script appropriately inline as core content; it sits just past the under-50-line simple-skill exception and the 13-check script could arguably live in scripts/, so minor organization gaps remain.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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 with an explicit 'Use when' clause, a distinct ARCHITECTURE.md-scoped niche, and decent natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is thin specificity — it says 'automated conformance checks' without naming what is checked or the summary output produced.

Suggestions

Enumerate 2-3 representative checks or the deliverable (e.g., 'checks services, islands, cross-module imports against docs/ARCHITECTURE.md and reports a pass/fail summary table').

Add natural trigger synonyms such as 'architecture review', 'conformance', or 'compliance' to broaden when-matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (ARCHITECTURE.md pattern conformance) and one action ('runs automated conformance checks') but does not enumerate the specific checks performed (services, islands, cross-module imports, etc.), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'when' ('Use when checking if code follows ARCHITECTURE.md patterns') and 'what' ('runs automated conformance checks'), though the 'what' is brief and the 'when' covers a single trigger condition rather than concrete trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrasing ('Use when checking if code follows', 'conformance checks', 'ARCHITECTURE.md patterns') that users would plausibly say, but misses common variations such as 'architecture review', 'compliance', or 'audit'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Anchoring the trigger to a specific project artifact (ARCHITECTURE.md conformance) gives it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal risk of firing for unrelated review or linting skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/specialist-agent

Path

packs/astro/skills/review-check-architecture/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.