CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

sdlc-map-architecture

Scans, analyzes, and documents the existing repository architecture, directories, and file purposes into docs/ARCHITECTURE.md.

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 ./.agents/skills/sdlc-map-architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 an efficient, well-sequenced three-phase workflow with concrete file lists, approval checkpoints, and a properly externalized template reference. Its main gaps are the absence of technical validation of the generated document and a couple of abstract inference steps that could use heuristics or examples.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is tight process guidance with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the only trimmable parts are the persona/Session Lock directives in "Core Directives" and an Overview that partially restates the title. Fits anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed), not 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: named files to read (README.md, CONTEXT.md, memory.instructions.md, docs/adr/, package.json, etc.), a 3-level traversal depth limit, a mandatory template path, a verbatim post-generation message, and a copy-paste AGENTS.md link format. Not 5 because inference steps like "Analyze what each specific folder does" and "Identify architectural patterns" stay abstract without heuristics or examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-phase sequence with explicit VERIFY and APPROVAL checkpoints, a conditionally gated Phase 3, and handling of the existing-ARCHITECTURE.md edge case (regenerate vs. update). Not 5 because there is no technical validation of the generated document (e.g., template-conformance or lint check) and no error-recovery loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The 73-line body is a well-organized overview that keeps the 81-line ARCHITECTURE-TEMPLATE.md in a real, verified bundle file (references/ARCHITECTURE-TEMPLATE.md), referenced exactly once with a clear MUST-read signal. One-level-deep, well-signaled, easy navigation — matches anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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.

The description states a clear, concrete capability with a specific output artifact, but it omits any "Use when..." trigger guidance and lacks the natural synonyms (codebase, onboarding, project structure) users would typically say. This limits discoverability and completeness while keeping conflict risk low.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when onboarding agents to an existing or legacy codebase, after major refactoring, or when the user asks to map/document the repository architecture."

Add natural user-facing synonyms such as "codebase", "project structure", and "directory layout" so the description matches how users actually phrase the request.

Optionally mention the AGENTS.md reference integration step to round out coverage of what the skill does.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes: "Scans, analyzes, and documents the existing repository architecture, directories, and file purposes into docs/ARCHITECTURE.md" — three concrete verbs with specific objects and a concrete output artifact. Matches anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because secondary outputs (AGENTS.md integration, monorepo handling) are uncovered, and beyond 3 because it lists more than 1-2 actions with a specific deliverable.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (scan/analyze/document architecture into docs/ARCHITECTURE.md) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because "when" is entirely absent rather than just imprecise.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms like "repository architecture", "directories", and "file purposes" are present, but common natural variations users would say — "codebase", "project structure", "onboarding", "map the repo" — are missing. Fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations/synonyms), not 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Producing a specific artifact (docs/ARCHITECTURE.md) is a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap against general documentation or code-explanation skills — anchor 4. Not 5 because without trigger phrases it is not fully distinguishable from a generic repo-documentation skill.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

glenrioariesto/social-content-studio

Path

.agents/skills/sdlc-map-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.