hwc-forms-validation
Handle Hotwire form workflows: form submission lifecycle, inline editing, validation errors, typeahead/autocomplete, modal forms, and external form controls. Prefer this skill when the core problem is correctness and UX of form interaction. Use hwc-navigation-content for pagination/tabs/filter navigation, hwc-realtime-streaming for WebSocket/Turbo Stream broadcasting, hwc-media-content for image/video/audio behavior, hwc-ux-feedback for generic loading/transition polish, and hwc-stimulus-fundamentals for framework-level Stimulus APIs not tied to forms.
89
86%
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 an excellent skill description that clearly defines its scope (Hotwire form workflows), lists specific concrete capabilities, provides explicit trigger guidance, and proactively disambiguates from related skills. The boundary-drawing with sibling skills is particularly strong and would help Claude select the correct skill even among a large set of Hotwire-related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: form submission lifecycle, inline editing, validation errors, typeahead/autocomplete, modal forms, and external form controls. These are all distinct, concrete capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (handle Hotwire form workflows with specific capabilities listed) and 'when' ('Prefer this skill when the core problem is correctness and UX of form interaction'). It also explicitly delineates boundaries by naming other skills for adjacent concerns. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'form submission', 'inline editing', 'validation errors', 'typeahead', 'autocomplete', 'modal forms', 'form controls'. These cover common variations of form-related queries in the Hotwire context. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Exceptionally distinctive — it explicitly names five related skills and explains when to use each one instead, creating very clear boundaries. The focus on 'form interaction' correctness and UX is a well-defined niche unlikely to conflict with the named sibling skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%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, concise skill that excels at progressive disclosure and token efficiency. Its main weakness is the lack of any concrete code examples in the body itself—all executable guidance is deferred to reference files, which reduces immediate actionability. Adding even one small inline example (e.g., a Turbo Frame wrapping a form with 422 response) would significantly improve the skill.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready code example in the Core Workflow section—e.g., a minimal ERB snippet showing a form wrapped in a Turbo Frame returning 422 on validation failure and 303 on success.
Add an explicit validation/feedback loop step in the Core Workflow, such as 'If the rerendered form loses focus or caret position, check that the Stimulus controller restores selection state in the connect() callback.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line earns its place. No explanation of what Turbo Frames or Stimulus are, no padding about Hotwire basics. The content assumes Claude knows the framework and focuses purely on decision-making guidance and constraints. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The workflow steps and guardrails provide clear directional guidance (return 422, use HTML form attribute, debounce keystrokes), but there are no concrete code examples—no ERB snippets, no Stimulus controller examples, no HTML markup. The actionable detail is deferred entirely to reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The core workflow provides a reasonable sequence (identify flow → wrap in frame → return correct status codes → handle post-submit → preserve context), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for error recovery. For form validation workflows involving rerenders, a validate-fix-retry loop would strengthen this. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure: concise overview in the skill body with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to specific files organized by use case. The INDEX.md fallback and neighbor skill escalation paths are well-structured for navigation. | 3 / 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
- lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
- Commit
cb03f92
- 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.