CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

improve-codebase-architecture

Explore a codebase to find opportunities for architectural improvement, focusing on making the codebase more testable by deepening shallow modules. Use when user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more AI-navigable.

66

Quality

80%

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 ./.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

The skill body is a clear, actionable, well-sequenced process with strong directive guidance and good structural intent. Its main weakness is that it repeatedly delegates core details to a REFERENCE.md file that is missing from the bundle, breaking progressive disclosure and leaving key executable content inaccessible.

Suggestions

Add the missing REFERENCE.md file containing the four dependency categories, the dependency-strategy guidance, and the GitHub issue RFC template that Steps 2, 5, and 7 depend on.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint before Step 7's `gh issue create` (or at minimum a post-create check that the issue rendered correctly), since creating a GitHub issue is an outward-facing, hard-to-reverse action.

Tighten the Ousterhout 'deep module' explainer into a one-line definition, since the concept framing is partially background Claude can infer.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and instructional with minimal padding, but the Ousterhout 'deep module' explainer paragraph and a few hedges ('this is not a proposal, just a way to ground the constraints') are mild over-explanation that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, near-copy-paste guidance — specific sub-agent prompts ('Minimize the interface — aim for 1-3 entry points max'), output structure, and the `gh issue create` command — but defers core executable details (the four dependency categories and the RFC template) to REFERENCE.md, which is not present.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered 7-step sequence with explicit user checkpoints ('Ask the user: Which of these would you like to explore?'), but it lacks explicit validation/error-recovery loops and instructs skipping review before the outward-facing step of creating a GitHub issue.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to REFERENCE.md, but REFERENCE.md does not exist in the bundle, so the four referenced details (dependency categories, dependency strategy, RFC template) are unreachable and navigation is incomplete.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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.

A strong, well-structured description that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases and a distinctive architectural thesis. Its only weakness is that some trigger phrasing is broad or jargon-heavy rather than fully natural.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'find opportunities for architectural improvement', 'deepening shallow modules', 'find refactoring opportunities', 'consolidate tightly-coupled modules', 'make a codebase more AI-navigable' — giving comprehensive coverage of the architecture-improvement domain.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Explore a codebase to find opportunities for architectural improvement...') and when ('Use when user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases like 'improve architecture', 'find refactoring opportunities', and 'consolidate tightly-coupled modules', but 'deepening shallow modules' is technical jargon rather than something a user would say, leaving a few natural synonyms uncovered.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The deep-module/boundary-testing thesis is a distinct niche, but the broad triggers 'improve architecture' and 'find refactoring opportunities' create minor overlap risk with general refactoring or code-quality skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
openstatusHQ/data-table-filters
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.