architecture-designer
Use when designing new system architecture, reviewing existing designs, or making architectural decisions. Invoke for system design, architecture review, design patterns, ADRs, scalability planning.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:jeffallan/claude-skills --skill architecture-designerOverall
score
64%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
82%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 has strong completeness with explicit 'Use when' and 'Invoke for' clauses, and includes good trigger terms that developers would naturally use. However, it lacks specificity in concrete actions (what exactly does it help produce?) and has moderate conflict risk with related design/planning skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete outputs like 'create architecture diagrams, write ADRs, evaluate trade-offs, document component interactions'
Narrow distinctiveness by specifying the scope more precisely, e.g., 'high-level system architecture' vs 'code-level design patterns' to reduce overlap with other skills
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (system architecture) and some actions (designing, reviewing, making decisions), but lacks concrete specific actions like 'create architecture diagrams', 'document trade-offs', or 'evaluate technology choices'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both what (designing system architecture, reviewing designs, making architectural decisions) and when ('Use when...', 'Invoke for...') with clear trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'system design', 'architecture review', 'design patterns', 'ADRs', 'scalability planning' - these are terms developers naturally use when seeking architectural guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to architecture domain, but 'design patterns' could overlap with code-level pattern skills, and 'system design' is broad enough to potentially conflict with infrastructure or database design skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
42%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has good structural organization and progressive disclosure through its reference table, but suffers from lack of actionable content. It describes what an architect should do without providing concrete examples, templates, or executable guidance. The workflow is clear but missing validation checkpoints for a domain where decisions have significant consequences.
Suggestions
Add a concrete ADR example directly in the skill rather than just referencing a template file, showing the expected format and level of detail
Include at least one specific architecture decision example with actual trade-off analysis (e.g., 'When to choose event-driven vs request-response' with concrete criteria)
Add validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'Verify requirements coverage before proceeding to design' and 'What to do if stakeholder review identifies gaps'
Remove the 'Knowledge Reference' section as it lists concepts Claude already knows and adds no actionable value
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary content like the 'Role Definition' section explaining Claude's persona and the 'Knowledge Reference' section listing concepts Claude already knows. The constraints and workflow sections are appropriately concise. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides abstract guidance without concrete, executable examples. There are no actual code snippets, specific commands, or copy-paste ready templates. The ADR template and other references are mentioned but not included, and the 'Output Templates' section describes what to provide without showing how. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step core workflow provides a clear sequence, but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For architectural decisions which can have significant downstream impact, there's no explicit verification step between design and documentation, and no guidance on what to do if stakeholder review fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill effectively uses a reference table with clear signals for when to load each reference file. The structure is well-organized with a clear overview and one-level-deep references to detailed materials (patterns, templates, checklists). | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
75%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 12 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
body_examples | No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording) | Warning |
Total | 12 / 16 Passed | |
- 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.