ruby-service-objects
Use when creating or refactoring Ruby service classes in Rails. Covers the .call pattern, module namespacing, YARD documentation, standardized responses, orchestrator delegation, transaction wrapping, and error handling conventions.
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 skill description that clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to use it. It leads with an explicit 'Use when' clause, lists multiple specific concrete patterns and conventions, and uses natural trigger terms that Rails developers would recognize. The description is concise, well-structured, and distinctly scoped to Ruby service classes in Rails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions and patterns: '.call pattern, module namespacing, YARD documentation, standardized responses, orchestrator delegation, transaction wrapping, and error handling conventions.' These are all concrete, identifiable techniques. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both 'what' (covers .call pattern, module namespacing, YARD documentation, standardized responses, orchestrator delegation, transaction wrapping, error handling conventions) and 'when' ('Use when creating or refactoring Ruby service classes in Rails'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords a developer would use: 'Ruby service classes', 'Rails', '.call pattern', 'module namespacing', 'YARD documentation', 'orchestrator', 'transaction wrapping', 'error handling', 'refactoring'. These cover the terms a Rails developer would naturally mention. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to Ruby/Rails service classes with specific patterns like .call, orchestrator delegation, and YARD documentation. This is a well-defined niche unlikely to conflict with general Ruby, general Rails, or other coding skills. | 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, highly actionable skill with excellent executable code examples and clear workflow patterns for Ruby service objects. The test-first hard gate and comprehensive checklist provide good validation checkpoints. The main weakness is length — some sections (particularly the controller bad/good comparison and the extensive conventions list) could be more concise or split into referenced files to improve token efficiency.
Suggestions
Move the bad/good controller comparison example to a separate reference file — Claude already understands why business logic shouldn't live in controllers.
Consider extracting the detailed Conventions section into a separate CONVENTIONS.md file, keeping only the quick reference table in the main skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly comprehensive but includes some content that could be tightened. The bad/good controller example is lengthy and somewhat obvious for Claude. The quick reference table duplicates information expanded below. However, most sections earn their place with concrete patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent actionability with fully executable Ruby code examples throughout — the .call pattern, response builder, transaction wrapping, input validation, error logging, and SQL sanitization are all copy-paste ready with realistic domain examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The hard-gate test-first workflow is explicitly sequenced with validation (write spec → verify failure → implement). The orchestrator pattern shows clear step sequencing with error recovery. The checklist provides a comprehensive verification step for new service objects. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references other skills (yard-documentation, rspec-best-practices, etc.) in the Integration table, which is good. However, the content itself is quite long and monolithic — the bad/good examples section and some convention details could be split into separate reference files. The structure is well-organized with headers but everything is inline. | 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.