coding

To implement features, fix bugs, and refactor with KISS/SOLID/DRY and systematic validation.

1.05x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

80%

1.05x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

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

The body is concise, well-organized, and actionable with concrete directives and a real one-level reference to assets/iac.md. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: validation is ordered and listed but lacks an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation feedback loop, e.g., 'If validation fails: fix the issue, re-run validation, and only proceed when it passes' to reach the workflow_clarity anchor.

Make the dependency-ordered validation sequence into a numbered checklist with checkpoint gates between database, API, web, and mobile stages.

Consider showing one concrete runnable example (command or snippet) for the CLI testing harness to strengthen actionability further.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean bullet-driven content ('Files stay under 300 LOC', 'databases → APIs → Web → Mobile') that assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining basic concepts, matching 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete executable directives — specific LOC thresholds, named project doc files, ordered validation methodology, and a validation checklist; as an instruction-oriented skill the codeless guidance is still actionable per the rubric's code_vs_instruction note.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A dependency-ordered validation sequence and a validation_checklist are present, but there is no explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback loop, matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is split into clearly signaled sections and the one external reference ('MUST follow `assets/iac.md`', a real file in assets/) is a single one-level-deep pointer, matching 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

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 is concise and names concrete actions, but it omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger and stays at a broad coding scope, capping completeness and distinctiveness. Adding natural trigger phrasing and a narrower niche would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code') to satisfy the completeness trigger requirement.

Include more natural user phrasings or variations (e.g., 'write code', 'debug', 'clean up code') to improve trigger term coverage.

Tighten the niche by signaling what distinguishes this skill (e.g., 'with systematic validation and multi-environment config') to reduce overlap with other skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes 'implement features, fix bugs, and refactor' naming three distinct concrete actions, matching the anchor that lists multiple specific concrete actions rather than a single vague domain.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does but has no 'Use when...' clause or explicit when-guidance, so per the guideline a missing trigger caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant terms like 'features', 'fix bugs', 'refactor' that a user might say, but lacks common variations and an explicit trigger clause, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'implement features, fix bugs, and refactor' is broad general coding territory that overlaps with many other skills rather than carving a clear niche, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap'.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: griddynamics/rosetta
Commit: 1efa337

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.