CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

backend-development-feature-development

Orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development from requirements to deployment. Use when coordinating multi-phase feature delivery across teams and services.

40

Quality

38%

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 ./skills/backend-development-feature-development/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

27%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 is an ambitious orchestration workflow but suffers from significant verbosity—it reads more like a project management playbook than a concise skill file. While the phased structure and subagent delegation pattern provide some actionability, the lack of executable examples, missing validation feedback loops between phases, and monolithic structure significantly reduce its effectiveness. The content would benefit greatly from aggressive trimming, splitting into referenced sub-files, and adding explicit checkpoint/gate conditions between phases.

Suggestions

Reduce the SKILL.md to a concise overview (~50-80 lines) with phase summaries, and move detailed phase instructions, prompt templates, and configuration options into separate referenced files (e.g., PHASES.md, CONFIG.md).

Add explicit validation gates between phases (e.g., 'Do not proceed to Phase 2 until requirements document is reviewed and approved; if step 7 tests fail, return to step 4/5 to fix before continuing').

Remove the extended thinking block and trim configuration/parameter listings to only what's non-obvious—Claude already understands concepts like canary deployments, TDD, and feature flags.

Add at least one concrete end-to-end example showing actual inputs and expected outputs for a simple feature, rather than relying entirely on abstract prompt templates with placeholders.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at ~250+ lines. The extended thinking block is unnecessary filler. Configuration options, execution parameters, and deployment strategies are exhaustively listed but largely describe concepts Claude already knows. Much of this reads like a project management template rather than actionable skill instructions.

1 / 3

Actionability

Each phase provides specific subagent_type references and prompt templates, which gives some concrete guidance. However, there is no executable code, no real commands, and the prompts are template-like with placeholders like '$ARGUMENTS' and '[include X from step N]' without showing actual examples of inputs/outputs. The guidance remains at the level of 'tell another agent to do it' rather than providing directly executable steps.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 12-step phased workflow is clearly sequenced with logical dependencies between phases. However, validation checkpoints are weak—there are no explicit 'stop and verify before proceeding' gates between phases. The rollback strategy is listed but lacks feedback loops during implementation (e.g., what happens if step 7 tests fail? There's no explicit 'fix and re-run' loop). For a workflow involving destructive operations like deployments and data migrations, this caps at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of text with no bundle files and no references to external documents. All 12 phases, configuration options, parameters, success criteria, and rollback strategies are inlined into a single massive file. Content like API reference details, configuration option descriptions, and per-phase prompt templates could easily be split into separate referenced files.

1 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

49%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 reads like a high-level project management buzzword summary rather than a concrete skill definition. While it does include both 'what' and 'when' clauses, the actual content is too vague and abstract to help Claude distinguish this skill from other development-related skills. It needs specific, concrete actions and more natural trigger terms to be effective in a multi-skill selection scenario.

Suggestions

Replace abstract language with concrete actions, e.g., 'Generates API designs, writes database schemas, creates service integration plans, produces deployment checklists' instead of 'orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development'.

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'new feature', 'backend API', 'microservice', 'service architecture', 'feature spec', 'release plan', or specific technology names.

Narrow the scope to create a distinct niche—specify what kind of backend features (REST APIs, event-driven services, etc.) or what 'orchestration' concretely means (task breakdown, dependency mapping, PR sequencing) to reduce conflict with generic development skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague, abstract language like 'orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development' and 'coordinating multi-phase feature delivery' without listing any concrete actions. No specific tasks like 'generate API endpoints', 'write database migrations', or 'create service contracts' are mentioned.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description does explicitly answer both 'what' ('Orchestrate end-to-end backend feature development from requirements to deployment') and 'when' ('Use when coordinating multi-phase feature delivery across teams and services'). It has an explicit 'Use when...' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant keywords like 'backend', 'feature development', 'requirements', 'deployment', and 'teams and services', but these are fairly generic. Missing natural user terms like 'API', 'microservices', 'database', 'endpoint', 'sprint planning', or specific technology references users would actually say.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is extremely broad and would overlap with many skills related to backend development, project management, deployment, DevOps, or any feature development workflow. 'End-to-end' and 'multi-phase' are so generic that nearly any development-related skill could conflict.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

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.