CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

oma-architecture

Evaluate system boundaries and architectural tradeoffs. Use for architecture decisions, design reviews, and ADRs.

Quality

74%

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 ./skills/oma-architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 is a well-sequenced operational specification with explicit verification and failure handling, but it is held back by duplicated sections and by delegating its most actionable material (execution protocol, method selection, templates) to reference files that are not present in the bundle. As shipped, a reader following the references cannot actually reach the skill's operating instructions.

Suggestions

Merge the duplicated sections: fold "Intent signature" into "When to use", replace the prose output bullets with the `outputs:` yaml block (or vice versa), and consolidate "Dependencies" with the "References" list.

Ship the missing bundle files — resources/execution-protocol.md, methodology-selection.md, stakeholder-synthesis.md, output-templates.md, api-evolution.md, migration-patterns.md, checklist.md, and _shared/conditional/diagram-engine.md — or remove/inline their content, since 7 of 12 referenced paths resolve to nothing.

Add a short inline decision rule for choosing among Diagnostic, Recommendation, Design-Twice, ATAM-style, CBAM-style, and ADR modes so the skill stays actionable when methodology-selection.md is unavailable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is operational rather than teaching known concepts, but contains clear duplication: "When to use" restates "Intent signature" almost verbatim, the six prose output bullets are repeated in the `outputs:` yaml block, and "Dependencies" largely repeats the "References" section. Mostly efficient, but these padded sections could be tightened — short of anchor 2's pervasive verbosity, above anchor 4's minimal trimming.

3 / 5

Actionability

There is concrete guidance (exact artifact paths `docs/decisions/*.md`, `.agents/results/architecture/`, the `architecture.adr-complete` recording step, and supersede-don't-contradict rules), but the executable detail — "resources/execution-protocol.md for workflow", "resources/methodology-selection.md for method choice", "resources/output-templates.md" — is delegated to files absent from the bundle, so key execution details are missing in practice. This exceeds anchor 2's high-level-only hints but is incomplete versus anchor 4.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Entry → PREPARE/ACQUIRE/REASON/VERIFY/FINALIZE scene sequence with transitions, a VERIFY step ("Check assumptions, validation steps, and fit against constraints"), and an explicit "Failure and recovery" section provides most checkpoints. It falls short of anchor 5 because validation specifics ("resources/checklist.md (run before handoff)") point to a file that does not exist in the bundle, leaving checkpoint content implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled one level deep with stated purposes ("Method selection: resources/methodology-selection.md", "API evolution patterns...: resources/api-evolution.md"), but 7 of the 12 referenced paths are missing from the bundle — all six `resources/` files plus `_shared/conditional/diagram-engine.md` — so navigation dead-ends on the core operational documents. Signaling exceeds anchor 3, but the broken disclosure chain is more than the minor organization gaps of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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 concise, well-structured description that explicitly states both capability and use triggers with natural terminology. Its only weakness is a narrow action vocabulary — one evaluation verb rather than the fuller set of actions the skill actually performs (compare, prioritize, document).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Evaluate system boundaries and architectural tradeoffs" names the domain and 1-2 concrete evaluation targets, but uses a single action verb with no compare/document/write actions, so coverage is not comprehensive. It is more concrete than anchor 2 ("Processes PDF files") but does not list the several specific actions of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Evaluate system boundaries and architectural tradeoffs") and when ("Use for architecture decisions, design reviews, and ADRs") with concrete trigger phrases, structurally matching the anchor-5 good example. Not anchor 4, because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific rather than needing more detail.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"architecture decisions, design reviews, and ADRs" are natural phrases users would say, plus "system boundaries" and "tradeoffs" from the first sentence. A few common variations are missing (e.g. "system design", "service boundaries", "microservices"), so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The architecture frame ("system boundaries", "architectural tradeoffs", "ADRs") establishes a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against generic skills. "design reviews" has at most a faint overlap with visual-design skills, but the architectural context makes the intent unambiguous.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 5 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

first-fluke/oh-my-agent

Path

skills/oma-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.