CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

architect-review

Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.

37

Quality

35%

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/architect-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

20%

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

The content is a well-sectioned but verbose persona dossier: long enumerations of architecture concepts Claude already knows, abstract workflow steps, and no concrete guidance or external references. It scores at the bottom on conciseness and actionability, and at the middle on workflow clarity and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Cut the Capabilities, Behavioral Traits, and Knowledge Base enumerations — they restate concepts Claude already knows; keep only the "Use this skill when", "Do not use this skill when", Instructions, and Safety sections to make the body lean.

Make the Instructions/Response Approach concrete and actionable: specify what to ask for, what artifacts to request (ADRs, C4 diagrams), and what an architectural-impact rating (High/Medium/Low) should be based on, with one short worked example.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow (e.g. "Before approving, confirm the change has a validation/rollout plan; if high-risk, require it") and move the detailed pattern catalogue into a reference file linked from SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~165-line body is padded with enumerations of concepts Claude already knows — the Capabilities lists ("Clean Architecture and Hexagonal Architecture implementation", "Repository, Unit of Work, and Specification patterns"), a Knowledge Base citing "Martin Fowler and Sam Newman" / "Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)", and an Expert Purpose that restates the frontmatter — matching the level-1 anchor of verbose text explaining concepts Claude knows.

1 / 3

Actionability

The Instructions ("Gather system context, goals, and constraints", "Evaluate architecture decisions and identify risks") and Response Approach are abstract directives with no concrete specifics, commands, or worked examples; it describes rather than instructs, matching the level-1 anchor even allowing for an instruction-only skill.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence exists (Instructions steps 1–4 and the 8-step Response Approach), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — the Safety section only hints at validation — matching the level-2 anchor of steps present with implicit/missing checkpoints.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is organized into headed sections but is a single monolithic file with no external references, and large inline blocks (the multi-section Capabilities enumeration, Knowledge Base, Behavioral Traits) that would be better split into reference files, matching the level-2 anchor of some structure with content that should be separate kept inline.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 establishes a clear architectural-review niche with third-person voice and one concrete action, but it reads as expertise framing plus a Claude directive rather than a tight what-and-when trigger. It lands at the middle anchor on every dimension because it lacks both a comprehensive list of concrete actions and an explicit user-facing "Use when..." trigger.

Suggestions

Replace "Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions" with an explicit user-facing trigger, e.g. "Use when reviewing system architecture or major design changes, or when the user asks about scalability, resilience, microservice boundaries, or DDD."

Lead with concrete actions instead of expertise (e.g. "Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability; identifies anti-patterns; recommends refactoring with tradeoffs"), and demote the "Master software architect specializing in..." framing.

Add natural user phrasings ("architecture review", "system design", "is this scalable?") alongside the technical terms so the trigger keywords match what a user would actually say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and one concrete action — "Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability" — but the rest is expertise framing ("specializing in ... microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD") rather than a list of multiple distinct concrete actions, so it stops short of the level-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

The "what" is clearly stated, but the "when" is only the weak directive "Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions" — not an explicit user-facing "Use when..." clause — so per the guideline a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2 rather than 3.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("architecture", "system designs", "microservices", "architectural decisions") but several lean technical ("DDD", "event-driven systems", "clean architecture") and the only trigger guidance is the Claude-directed "Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions" rather than natural user phrasings, matching the level-2 anchor of some relevant keywords missing common variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The architectural-review niche is fairly distinct, but "Reviews ... code changes" overlaps with general code-review skills and the absence of a sharp "Use when..." trigger leaves it somewhat specific yet still overlapping with similar skills, matching the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
rmyndharis/antigravity-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.