c4-component

Expert C4 Component-level documentation specialist. Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships.

Quality

20%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/c4-component/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is c4-component in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

7%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 essentially an unfilled template with placeholder brackets throughout, providing no concrete, actionable guidance for synthesizing C4 code-level documentation into component-level architecture. It explains concepts Claude already understands, lacks any executable examples or real workflows, and provides only generic instructions. The content would need to be transformed from a template into actual skill instructions with concrete steps, real examples, and validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Replace placeholder brackets with concrete, worked examples showing how to actually synthesize code-level files into component documentation — include a real before/after example with actual code elements being grouped into components.

Add a clear, sequenced workflow for the synthesis process: e.g., 1) Read all c4-code-*.md files, 2) Identify logical groupings based on X criteria, 3) Define boundaries, 4) Validate completeness against checklist, 5) Generate component documentation.

Remove generic boilerplate sections ('Use this skill when' with obvious statements, 'Limitations' with generic disclaimers) and explanations of C4 concepts Claude already knows — focus only on the specific synthesis methodology and decision criteria.

Either provide the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' bundle file or inline the critical guidance it would contain, so the skill is self-sufficient.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is a template full of placeholders ([Component Name], [Description], etc.) rather than actionable content. It explains concepts Claude already knows (what C4 components are, what interfaces are) and includes verbose boilerplate sections like 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' with generic guidance. The 'Key Principles' section restates basic C4 model concepts.	1 / 3
Actionability	The content is entirely template-based with placeholder brackets throughout — nothing is executable or copy-paste ready. Instructions like 'Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs' and 'Apply relevant best practices' are vague and abstract. The Mermaid diagram is a template, not a concrete example. There are no specific commands, concrete code, or real examples to follow.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no clear multi-step workflow for synthesizing code-level documentation into component-level architecture. The 'Instructions' section has four bullet points of generic advice with no sequencing, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops. The 'Example Interactions' section lists prompts but doesn't explain how to actually execute the synthesis process.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	There is a reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed examples, and the structure has logical sections (Overview, Interfaces, Dependencies, Diagram). However, no bundle files exist to support the reference, and the skill itself is a monolithic template that mixes overview content with detailed templates that could be separated.	2 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Description

32%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 identifies a clear domain niche (C4 Component-level documentation) and mentions some concrete activities, but it reads more like a role title than an actionable skill description. It critically lacks a 'Use when...' clause, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill, and the trigger terms could be broader to capture natural user language.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create or update C4 Component diagrams, synthesize code-level details into component architecture, or define component boundaries and interfaces.'

Include natural trigger term variations such as 'C4 model', 'C4 diagram', 'component diagram', 'software architecture', and '.puml' or 'PlantUML' if applicable.

List more specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Generates C4 Component diagrams, maps code-level elements to components, documents inter-component APIs and data flows.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (C4 Component-level documentation) and some actions ('synthesizes', 'defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships'), but doesn't list multiple concrete discrete actions like generating diagrams, producing specific artifacts, or validating existing documentation.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (synthesizes C4 Code-level docs into Component-level architecture) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is entirely absent, warranting a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'C4', 'Component-level', 'Code-level', 'architecture', 'component boundaries', and 'interfaces', but misses common user variations like 'C4 model', 'C4 diagram', 'architecture diagram', 'component diagram', or 'software architecture documentation'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The C4 Component-level focus is fairly specific and distinguishes it from generic documentation skills, but it could overlap with other C4-level skills (e.g., C4 Context or Container level) or general architecture documentation skills without clearer trigger boundaries.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: popey/claude-code-skills
Path: skills/c4-component/SKILL.md
Commit: a5a6601

Reviewed: 20 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.