Reverse-engineering specialist that extracts specifications from existing codebases. Use when working with legacy or undocumented systems, inherited projects, or old codebases with no documentation. Invoke to map code dependencies, generate API documentation from source, identify undocumented business logic, figure out what code does, or create architecture documentation from implementation. Trigger phrases: reverse engineer, old codebase, no docs, no documentation, figure out how this works, inherited project, legacy analysis, code archaeology, undocumented features.
72
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
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 defines its niche in reverse-engineering and legacy code analysis. It provides specific concrete actions, comprehensive trigger terms that users would naturally use, and explicitly addresses both what the skill does and when to invoke it. The description is well-structured and uses appropriate third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: map code dependencies, generate API documentation from source, identify undocumented business logic, create architecture documentation from implementation. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (extracts specifications, maps dependencies, generates API docs, identifies business logic, creates architecture docs) and 'when' (legacy/undocumented systems, inherited projects, old codebases with no documentation) with explicit trigger phrases. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'reverse engineer', 'old codebase', 'no docs', 'figure out how this works', 'inherited project', 'legacy analysis', 'code archaeology', 'undocumented features'. These are highly natural phrases a user would actually type. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Occupies a clear niche around reverse-engineering undocumented/legacy codebases. The trigger terms are highly specific to this use case and unlikely to conflict with general code analysis or documentation generation 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 well-structured skill with strong actionability through concrete tool patterns and the EARS format table. The workflow is clear with an explicit validation checkpoint. Minor weaknesses include some redundant sections (Role Definition, When to Use), slight verbosity in constraints that state obvious good practices, and unverifiable reference file paths since no bundle was provided.
Suggestions
Remove or trim the 'When to Use This Skill' section since this duplicates the skill description/trigger phrases and wastes tokens.
Trim the MUST NOT constraints to only non-obvious items — 'Make assumptions without code evidence' is already implied by the MUST DO list.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like 'When to Use This Skill' (which restates the description) and the Role Definition section adds little actionable value. The EARS table and exploration patterns are well-condensed, but the constraints section has some obvious items ('don't make assumptions without evidence'). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable Glob/Grep patterns, a clear EARS format table with specific examples, a defined output structure with file path convention, and explicit tool usage. The exploration patterns are copy-paste ready and the EARS examples are directly usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step core workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint after the Explore step that includes criteria for when to proceed vs. continue exploring. The workflow covers the full lifecycle from scoping through documentation with a flagging step for uncertainties. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The reference table clearly signals four separate reference files with contextual 'Load When' guidance, which is excellent structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so the referenced files (references/ears-format.md, references/analysis-process.md, etc.) cannot be verified to exist. The inline EARS table partially duplicates what would be in the reference, creating some redundancy. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
e8be415
Table of Contents
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.