cto-advisor

Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Includes tech debt analyzer, team scaling calculator, engineering metrics frameworks, technology evaluation tools, and ADR templates. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling engineering teams, evaluating technologies, making architecture decisions, establishing engineering metrics, or when user mentions CTO, tech debt, technical debt, team scaling, architecture decisions, technology evaluation, engineering metrics, DORA metrics, or technology strategy.

1.73x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.73x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

27%

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

The body is an over-long, mostly generic management reference rather than a lean, actionable skill. It references scripts and reference files that do not exist in the bundle, breaking progressive disclosure and undermining its concrete commands.

Suggestions

Trim generic content Claude already knows (weekly cadence, quarterly planning, stakeholder/tool/book lists) to focus the body on skill-specific, actionable guidance.

Provide the referenced bundle files (scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py, scripts/team_scaling_calculator.py, references/architecture_decision_records.md, references/technology_evaluation_framework.md, references/engineering_metrics.md) or remove the dangling references, so progressive disclosure navigation actually resolves.

Add explicit validation/checkpoint steps to the multi-step workflows (ADR, vendor evaluation, incident response) so each sequence has a verify-then-proceed feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	At ~400 lines the body is padded with generic management prose Claude already knows (weekly cadence, quarterly planning, crisis management, stakeholder management, book/tool lists), matching the verbose "explains concepts Claude knows" anchor rather than a lean operational skill.	1 / 3
Actionability	Some concrete commands appear ("python scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py") but most guidance is declarative bullets ("Define 3-5 year technology vision", "Allocate 20% time") rather than executable, copy-paste-ready instructions, and the referenced scripts do not exist in the bundle.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Some sequences exist (numbered steps for ADR, vendor evaluation, incident response) but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the multi-step processes described, leaving steps implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body repeatedly points to references/ and scripts/ files (e.g. "references/architecture_decision_records.md", "scripts/tech_debt_analyzer.py") that are absent from the bundle, so navigation is broken and the content is a monolithic wall of inline text rather than a clear overview with one-level-deep references.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

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.

The description is specific, complete, and well-triggered with both concrete capabilities and an explicit "Use when" clause covering natural keywords. It carves a clear CTO-leadership niche with low conflict risk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete capabilities — "tech debt analyzer, team scaling calculator, engineering metrics frameworks, technology evaluation tools, and ADR templates" — rather than vague language, matching the highest anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what it does ("Technical leadership guidance...") and when to use it via a clearly labeled "Use when..." clause, matching the top anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Good coverage of natural terms a user would say — "CTO, tech debt, technical debt, team scaling, architecture decisions, DORA metrics" — well beyond a single generic keyword.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear CTO-leadership niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills, rather than a generic overlap-prone description.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 10 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Commit: cb3ef45

Reviewed: about 18 hours 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.