CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

enterprise-architecture-patterns

Complete guide for enterprise architecture patterns including domain-driven design, event sourcing, CQRS, saga patterns, API gateway, service mesh, and scalability

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/luxor-devops-suite/skills/enterprise-architecture-patterns/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

25%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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-organized but monolithic textbook: nearly 2,500 lines of standard distributed-systems material inlined into SKILL.md, written as a reference catalog rather than actionable guidance. It wastes the context window re-teaching concepts Claude already knows and provides no workflow for applying the patterns to a real task.

Suggestions

Cut the SKILL.md body to a lean overview (trigger cases plus a pattern-selection summary) and move each pattern family (DDD, event sourcing, CQRS, sagas, resilience, scalability) into one-level-deep reference files under references/.

Delete or drastically compress sections that restate common knowledge — CAP theorem, distributed computing fallacies, entity/value-object definitions, and the eight-item generic best-practice lists (security, testing, monitoring).

Add a decision workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g. how to choose orchestration vs. choreography sagas, when event sourcing is justified vs. CRUD, how to verify aggregate invariants) so the skill instructs rather than just describes.

Make code examples self-contained (define or stub generateId, Product, OrderStatus, and service dependencies) so they are executable rather than illustrative.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~2,450-line body extensively explains concepts Claude already knows — the CAP theorem, the eight "Distributed Computing Fallacies", textbook definitions of entities/value objects/repositories, and eight generic best-practice lists (security, testing, monitoring, performance). This matches "Severely verbose; extensively explains concepts Claude already knows; heavily padded".

1 / 5

Actionability

Substantial TypeScript implementations exist (Order aggregate, InMemoryEventStore, OrderSaga, CircuitBreaker), but they rely on undefined ambient symbols (generateId(), Product, OrderStatus, orderService, Database, ReadDatabase) so they are illustrative rather than executable, and the skill gives no guidance on what to actually do for a given task. Not 4 because the gaps are systematic rather than minor; not 2 because detailed, concrete pattern implementations are present.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sections are organized topically (concepts → DDD → event sourcing → CQRS → sagas → gateway → resilience → scalability) and context-mapping patterns carry brief "Use when" notes, but there is no task workflow: no sequence to follow, no decision procedure for choosing among patterns, and no validation checkpoints. Not 1 because topical organization and per-pattern guidance exist.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and all content — e.g. ~300 lines of event-sourcing implementation, ~150 lines of Istio service-mesh config, and a 100-line best-practices catalog — is inlined in SKILL.md. This matches "content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined"; section headers keep it above a 1.

2 / 5

Total

8

/

20

Passed

Description

56%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 names a clear, distinctive domain and lists strong natural trigger terms, but it reads as a topic catalog rather than a capability statement: no concrete actions and no "Use when…" trigger clause. Adding explicit action verbs and trigger guidance would lift specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when designing microservices, migrating a monolith, or implementing event sourcing, CQRS, or sagas."

Replace the passive topic list with concrete actions (e.g. "Designs bounded contexts and aggregates, implements event-sourced aggregates with snapshots, orchestrates sagas with compensation").

Include high-frequency synonyms such as "microservices" and "distributed systems" that users would naturally say but that are currently only in the tags.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Complete guide for enterprise architecture patterns including…" names the domain and catalogs pattern topics (domain-driven design, event sourcing, CQRS) but states no concrete actions, matching the anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic". Not 3 because no 1-2 concrete action verbs (extract, fill, merge) appear anywhere; not 1 because the domain is explicitly named with specific patterns.

2 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Complete guide for enterprise architecture patterns including…" with a named pattern list) but there is no "Use when…" clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4/5 because the "when" is entirely absent; not 2 because the "what" is specific rather than vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"domain-driven design, event sourcing, CQRS, saga patterns, API gateway, service mesh" are natural terms practitioners would say when needing this skill — good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common synonyms like "microservices", "distributed systems", and "event-driven" are absent from the description; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond "some relevant keywords".

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specific pattern names ("saga patterns", "event sourcing", "CQRS", "service mesh") carve a mostly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against general system-design skills. Not 5 because broad tail terms like "scalability" and "enterprise architecture" could overlap with related architecture skills; not 3 because the pattern list is quite distinctive.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (2457 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

manutej/luxor-claude-marketplace

Path

plugins/luxor-devops-suite/skills/enterprise-architecture-patterns/SKILL.md

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.