rails-engine-reviewer
Use when reviewing a Rails engine, mountable engine, or Railtie. Covers namespace boundaries, host-app integration, safe initialization, migrations, generators, and dummy app test coverage. Prioritizes architectural risks.
90
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%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 is a strong, well-crafted description that clearly identifies its niche (Rails engine/Railtie review), lists specific review areas, and opens with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause. It uses third-person voice appropriately and includes domain-specific terms that developers would naturally use. The description is concise yet comprehensive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: reviewing namespace boundaries, host-app integration, safe initialization, migrations, generators, and dummy app test coverage. Also specifies it prioritizes architectural risks. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (covers namespace boundaries, host-app integration, safe initialization, migrations, generators, dummy app test coverage, prioritizes architectural risks) and 'when' (explicitly starts with 'Use when reviewing a Rails engine, mountable engine, or Railtie'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'Rails engine', 'mountable engine', 'Railtie', 'migrations', 'generators', 'dummy app', 'namespace boundaries', 'host-app integration'. These are terms a developer would naturally use when seeking a review of a Rails engine. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — targets specifically Rails engines, mountable engines, and Railties, which is a clear niche. Unlikely to conflict with general Rails review skills or other code review skills due to the specific engine/Railtie focus. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, actionable review skill with clear workflow sequencing and concrete code examples. Its main weakness is moderate redundancy across sections (Red Flags vs High-Severity, Quick Reference vs What Good Looks Like) and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed reference material into separate files. Overall it would serve Claude well as a Rails engine review guide.
Suggestions
Consolidate 'Red Flags' into 'High-Severity Findings' since they cover nearly identical content, reducing redundancy and token usage.
Consider extracting the detailed severity-tier findings and common fixes into a separate REFERENCE.md, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with the review order, quick reference table, output format, and one example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient and domain-specific, but there's some redundancy between sections (e.g., 'Red Flags' and 'High-Severity Findings' overlap significantly, and 'What Good Looks Like' restates points from the Quick Reference table). Some tightening would reduce token usage without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: exact checks to perform, real Ruby code examples showing bad and good patterns, a structured output format with required fields (severity, affected file, risk, fix), and specific fix suggestions like adding `isolate_namespace` or moving hooks to `config.to_prepare`. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The review order is clearly sequenced (7 steps from identification through summary), severity tiers are well-defined for prioritization, and the output format acts as a validation checkpoint ensuring findings are complete. For a review skill (non-destructive), this level of workflow clarity is excellent. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and tables, but it's a fairly long monolithic file (~150 lines of substantive content). The severity tiers, common fixes, and examples could be split into referenced files. The Integration table at the end hints at related skills but doesn't link to supplementary reference material for this skill itself. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- igmarin/rails-agent-skills
- Commit
ae8ea63
- 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.