CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

architecture

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.

44

Quality

44%

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/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/architecture/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

22%Scale 1-3

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

This skill functions primarily as a table of contents pointing to supporting files that don't exist in the bundle. The SKILL.md itself contains no actionable framework, no concrete steps for architecture decision-making, and no examples. Without the referenced files, the skill provides almost no usable guidance beyond a vague checklist and a simplicity principle.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, sequenced workflow (e.g., 1. Gather requirements → 2. Classify project → 3. Evaluate trade-offs → 4. Select patterns → 5. Document ADR) with explicit validation checkpoints between steps.

Include at least one concrete ADR template or example directly in SKILL.md so the skill is actionable even without bundle files.

Remove the generic 'When to Use' and 'Limitations' boilerplate sections that add no skill-specific value.

Provide the referenced bundle files (context-discovery.md, trade-off-analysis.md, etc.) or inline their essential content to make the skill functional.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with good use of tables and checklists, but the 'When to Use' and 'Limitations' sections are generic boilerplate that add no value. The core principle section, while brief, states things Claude already understands about simplicity.

2 / 3

Actionability

The SKILL.md provides no concrete, executable guidance—no code, no specific commands, no examples of ADR format, no actual decision framework steps. It is entirely a navigation page pointing to other files, with only a vague validation checklist and abstract principles.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is no clear workflow sequence for making architecture decisions. The checklist at the end is a static list without ordering, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops. A user wouldn't know what to do first, second, or how to iterate.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content map table is well-structured with clear 'When to Read' guidance and one-level-deep references. However, no bundle files were provided, meaning all referenced files (context-discovery.md, trade-off-analysis.md, etc.) are missing, making the progressive disclosure structure non-functional in practice.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

67%Scale 1-3

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 competent with a clear 'Use when' clause and reasonable domain identification. However, the capabilities listed are somewhat abstract rather than concretely actionable, and the trigger terms could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings. The description would benefit from more specific actions and additional keyword variations to improve both specificity and discoverability.

Suggestions

Add more concrete actions such as 'compare technology alternatives', 'generate ADR markdown documents', or 'evaluate scalability and maintainability tradeoffs' to increase specificity.

Expand trigger terms to include natural variations like 'tech stack choice', 'design tradeoffs', 'RFC', 'architecture review', 'design proposal', or 'technology comparison'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (architectural decisions) and some actions (requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation), but these are somewhat abstract and not deeply concrete actions like 'generate ADR markdown files' or 'compare technology options in a matrix'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation) and 'when' (explicitly states 'Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms like 'architecture decisions', 'system design', and 'ADR', but misses common natural variations users might say such as 'tech stack choice', 'design tradeoffs', 'architecture review', 'RFC', or 'design document'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'System design' and 'architecture' are fairly broad terms that could overlap with skills focused on code structure, infrastructure, or general software design. The ADR mention helps narrow it, but 'analyzing system design' is still quite broad.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
popey/claude-code-skills
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.