122-java-type-design

Use when you need to review, improve, or refactor Java code for type design quality — including establishing clear type hierarchies, applying consistent naming conventions, eliminating primitive obsession with domain-specific value objects, leveraging generic type parameters, creating type-safe wrappers, designing fluent interfaces, ensuring precision-appropriate numeric types (BigDecimal for financial calculations), and improving type contrast through interfaces and method signature alignment. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for type design; Improve type design in Java code; Fix primitive obsession in Java code; Create value objects in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

70%

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

Well-structured with strong progressive disclosure and a clear, validated workflow. It loses points on conciseness (intro fluff and a duplicated trigger list) and actionability (no inline code examples for the refactorings it describes).

Suggestions

Tighten the intro paragraph and drop or shorten the "When to use this skill" section since those triggers already appear in the description.

Add one or two short inline good/bad Java code snippets (e.g., primitive int vs. Money value object) so the body carries at least minimal executable guidance rather than delegating everything to the reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with a useful bullet overview, but the intro line ("comprehensive type design principles that apply typography concepts... for maximum clarity and maintainability") and the "When to use this skill" section — which re-lists the same triggers already in the description — add redundancy that could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands ("./mvnw compile", "./mvnw clean verify") and a clear file pointer, but all actual refactoring code patterns are deferred to the reference with no inline good/bad example, leaving the core task guidance incomplete in the body itself.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced four-step workflow (compile → read reference → apply → verify) with explicit validation checkpoints ("stop immediately if compilation fails", mandatory verify after) and a feedback loop on the compile step, matching the anchor-3 example.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A concise overview body pointing to a single one-level-deep reference (references/122-java-type-design.md, verified present), clearly signaled in three places (Constraints, Workflow step 2, and a dedicated Reference section) — textbook good progressive disclosure.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

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

A strong, specific description with explicit "Use when..." triggers and natural user phrasing. The only issue is second-person voice ("you need to"), which the rubric penalizes on specificity.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description in third person (e.g., "Use when reviewing, improving, or refactoring Java code for type design quality") to avoid the second-person voice penalty.

The trigger list duplicates much of the body's "When to use this skill" section; consider trimming one to reduce redundancy.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions ("establishing clear type hierarchies", "eliminating primitive obsession with domain-specific value objects", "designing fluent interfaces", "BigDecimal for financial calculations"), which is anchor-3 quality; however the second-person phrasing "Use when you need to review..." triggers the rubric's −1 voice penalty, capping it at 2.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("review, improve, or refactor Java code for type design quality — including...") and when ("This should trigger for requests such as...") with explicit triggers, matching the anchor-3 example.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user-request phrases are well covered — "Review Java code for type design", "Fix primitive obsession in Java code", "Create value objects in Java code" — matching the anchor for good coverage of terms users would actually say.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear, narrow niche — Java type design — with distinct triggers ("Fix primitive obsession in Java code", "Create value objects in Java code") unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: jabrena/plinth
Commit: aaee915

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.