coding

Rosetta coding skill for implementation with KISS/SOLID/DRY principles, zero-tolerance quality, multi-environment awareness, and systematic validation. Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or making code changes.

1.05x

Quality

41%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

82%

1.05x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./instructions/r2/core/skills/coding/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

32%

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

This description relies heavily on abstract principles and buzzwords (KISS, SOLID, DRY, zero-tolerance quality) without specifying concrete actions the skill performs. The trigger terms are so broad ('implementing features, fixing bugs, or making code changes') that they would conflict with nearly any other coding skill. The 'Rosetta' name suggests something specific but the description fails to clarify what makes this skill unique.

Suggestions

Replace abstract buzzwords with specific concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Generates implementation code with test coverage, performs code review checks, validates across environments').

Narrow the trigger terms to the skill's actual niche — specify what types of projects, languages, or contexts distinguish this from other coding skills.

Clarify what 'Rosetta', 'multi-environment awareness', and 'systematic validation' mean in practical terms so Claude can distinguish this skill from generic coding assistance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses abstract buzzwords like 'KISS/SOLID/DRY principles', 'zero-tolerance quality', 'multi-environment awareness', and 'systematic validation' without listing any concrete actions. It does not describe what the skill actually does in specific terms.	1 / 3
Completeness	It has a 'Use when...' clause covering when to use it ('implementing features, fixing bugs, or making code changes'), but the 'what' portion is vague buzzwords rather than concrete capabilities. The 'when' triggers are also overly broad and would match nearly any coding task.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'implementing features', 'fixing bugs', and 'code changes' are natural phrases users might say, but they are extremely broad. Missing specific language about what kind of code, what languages, or what domain this applies to.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The triggers 'implementing features, fixing bugs, or making code changes' would match virtually any coding skill. There is nothing distinctive about this description that would help Claude choose it over other coding-related skills.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Implementation

50%

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

This skill provides a comprehensive set of principles and constraints for coding implementation, with useful validation ordering and a clear checklist. However, it lacks concrete executable examples, relies heavily on abstract principles Claude already knows, and the workflow for actual implementation is implicit rather than explicitly sequenced. The skill would benefit significantly from concrete code examples, a step-by-step implementation workflow, and better progressive disclosure through bundle files.

Suggestions

Add a concrete step-by-step implementation workflow (e.g., '1. Load context → 2. Analyze impact → 3. Implement changes → 4. Validate per checklist → 5. Update docs') with explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery loops.

Remove or compress well-known principle acronyms (KISS, SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, MECE) into a single line — Claude knows these. Use the saved tokens for concrete examples instead.

Add at least one concrete, executable example showing the validation methodology in action (e.g., a specific curl command for API validation, a specific test command sequence).

Move the file format specifications (CODEMAP.md, DEPENDENCIES.md, TECHSTACK.md) into separate bundle reference files with concrete examples of each file's expected content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy and concepts Claude already knows (KISS, SOLID, DRY, YAGNI are well-known acronyms that don't need listing). The documentation file descriptions (CODEMAP.md format) add useful specificity, but sections like 'pitfalls' with a single bullet feel underdeveloped. Some items like 'no cheating, no pre-existing excuses' are vague filler.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides concrete checklists and validation ordering (databases → APIs → Web → Mobile), but lacks executable code examples, specific commands, or copy-paste ready snippets. Guidance like 'check git changes against tech plan' and 'CLI commands outputting intermediate results' is directional but not concrete enough to be immediately executable.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is a clear validation methodology with a dependency-ordered sequence (databases → APIs → Web → Mobile) and a validation checklist, but the overall implementation workflow lacks explicit step-by-step sequencing. There's no clear 'first do X, then Y, validate Z' flow for the coding process itself, and feedback loops for error recovery are not explicitly defined.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references other skills (debugging, planning, tech-specs) and MCP tools, providing some navigation. However, there are no bundle files to support the references, and the content is somewhat monolithic — the file format descriptions (CODEMAP.md, DEPENDENCIES.md, TECHSTACK.md) could be split into referenced files. The XML-style sections provide some structure but aren't ideal markdown organization.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: griddynamics/rosetta
Commit: 0f3002b

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.