packet-orchestration
Plan and operate project-agnostic parallel feature work using atomic file-owned packets, dependency waves, handoff prompts, and repair packets. Use when Codex needs to split any feature, migration, refactor, or platform change into independent subagent tasks, define packet contracts, decide which packets can run in parallel, generate handoff prompts, review completed packets, or create narrow follow-up repair packets.
88
85%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
85%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly articulates specific capabilities and explicit usage triggers. The main weakness is the heavy use of technical jargon that users may not naturally use when requesting this functionality, which could reduce discoverability. The description excels at distinctiveness and completeness.
Suggestions
Add more natural language trigger terms that users might actually say, such as 'parallelize work', 'split into tasks', 'divide feature work', or 'coordinate multiple agents'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'split any feature, migration, refactor, or platform change into independent subagent tasks', 'define packet contracts', 'decide which packets can run in parallel', 'generate handoff prompts', 'review completed packets', 'create narrow follow-up repair packets'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Plan and operate project-agnostic parallel feature work using atomic file-owned packets...') and when ('Use when Codex needs to split any feature, migration, refactor, or platform change into independent subagent tasks...'). Has explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'parallel', 'feature', 'migration', 'refactor', 'subagent tasks', 'handoff prompts', but uses technical jargon ('atomic file-owned packets', 'dependency waves', 'packet contracts') that users may not naturally say. Missing common variations like 'parallelize', 'split work', 'divide tasks'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with specific terminology ('atomic file-owned packets', 'dependency waves', 'handoff prompts', 'repair packets') that creates a clear niche. Unlikely to conflict with general coding or project management skills due to the specialized parallel work orchestration focus. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%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-structured orchestration skill with excellent workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. The content is concise and assumes Claude's competence with multi-agent coordination concepts. The main weakness is actionability—while the guidance is specific, it relies heavily on external templates rather than providing inline executable examples or concrete command snippets.
Suggestions
Include at least one inline example of a complete packet contract with frontmatter and body sections, rather than only referencing templates.md
Add concrete verification command examples (e.g., specific test commands, lint checks) rather than describing them abstractly as 'exact commands or manual checks'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, assuming Claude understands concepts like dependency graphs, file ownership, and multi-agent coordination. No unnecessary explanations of basic concepts; every section adds actionable value. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear conceptual guidance and specific conventions (frontmatter fields, status values, directory structure), but lacks executable code examples. The templates are referenced externally rather than shown inline, and verification commands are described abstractly rather than demonstrated. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: build graph → write contracts → dispatch in waves → review against contract → repair narrowly. Includes validation steps (review against contract, reproduce verification) and feedback loops (repair packets, update board after review). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear overview sections and a single reference to templates.md for detailed artifacts. Content is appropriately split between the main skill (workflow, rules, conventions) and the referenced file (templates, prompts, checklists). | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- raphaeldelio/agent-skills
- Commit
e84893e
- 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.