microservices-architect
Use when designing distributed systems, decomposing monoliths, or implementing microservices patterns. Invoke for service boundaries, DDD, saga patterns, event sourcing, service mesh, distributed tracing.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:jeffallan/claude-skills --skill microservices-architectOverall
score
61%
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
72%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 excels at trigger term coverage and distinctiveness, providing excellent keywords that developers would naturally use. However, it fails to describe what the skill actually does - it reads as a list of topics rather than capabilities. The description tells Claude when to use it but not what actions it performs.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Designs distributed system architectures, recommends decomposition strategies, and provides implementation guidance for microservices patterns.'
Restructure to lead with capabilities before the 'Use when' clause to clearly answer 'what does this do' first.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (distributed systems, microservices) and lists several concepts (saga patterns, event sourcing, service mesh, distributed tracing), but doesn't describe concrete actions - it lists topics rather than what the skill actually does with them. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios, but the 'what does this do' portion is missing - the description only tells when to invoke it, not what actions or outputs the skill provides (e.g., 'designs architecture diagrams', 'recommends patterns', 'analyzes service boundaries'). | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'distributed systems', 'microservices', 'monoliths', 'service boundaries', 'DDD', 'saga patterns', 'event sourcing', 'service mesh', 'distributed tracing' - these are all terms developers naturally use when seeking help in this domain. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche in distributed systems architecture with highly specific trigger terms like 'saga patterns', 'event sourcing', 'service mesh' that are unlikely to conflict with general coding or other architecture skills. | 3 / 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 functions more as a high-level checklist and reference index than actionable guidance. While it has good structure and progressive disclosure through its reference table, it critically lacks concrete, executable examples - no code snippets, no configuration samples, no specific commands. The content describes what to do conceptually but never shows how to do it.
Suggestions
Add executable code examples for key patterns: circuit breaker implementation, correlation ID middleware, health check endpoints, and basic service mesh configuration
Include a concrete example of service decomposition with before/after diagrams or code structure showing bounded context boundaries
Add validation checkpoints to the Core Workflow, such as 'Verify service boundaries with event storming session' or 'Test circuit breaker behavior under failure conditions'
Remove the 'Role Definition' and 'Knowledge Reference' sections - Claude doesn't need to be told it's an architect or reminded of basic distributed systems concepts
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary sections like 'Role Definition' that explain what Claude should already understand from context. The 'Knowledge Reference' section is a list of terms Claude already knows. However, the core content is reasonably efficient. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no executable code, no concrete commands, and no specific examples. It describes concepts and patterns at a high level but never shows how to actually implement anything - no circuit breaker code, no service mesh configuration, no tracing setup. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Core Workflow' provides a clear 6-step sequence, but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For complex distributed system design involving potentially destructive changes, there's no guidance on how to verify each step before proceeding. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill effectively uses a reference table pointing to separate files for detailed guidance on specific topics. References are one level deep, clearly signaled with a 'Load When' column explaining context, and the main file serves as a concise overview. | 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.