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.

46

Quality

48%

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

35%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The skill defines an architecture-review persona with clear use/don't-use framing and a sequenced workflow, but it is padded with knowledge Claude already has and lacks concrete, actionable review methods. Tightening the body and adding specific heuristics would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Expert Purpose', 'Behavioral Traits', and 'Knowledge Base' sections — they restate the description and enumerate concepts Claude already knows, inflating the context budget.

Replace the abstract Instructions with a concrete review playbook: specific anti-pattern checks, a bounded-context evaluation heuristic, and a short worked example of assessing a microservice design.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. 'Before approving a change, confirm a validation plan exists for high-risk decisions; if none, request one before proceeding'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: 'Expert Purpose' restates the description, the Capabilities sections enumerate dozens of patterns Claude already knows, and the Knowledge Base cites familiar books (Uncle Bob, Martin Fowler, CAP theorem) that pad rather than instruct.

2 / 5

Actionability

Guidance stays high-level and abstract — 'Gather system context', 'Evaluate architecture decisions and identify risks', 'Recommend improvements with tradeoffs' — without concrete methods, heuristics, checklists, or worked examples of how to actually perform the review.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A sequenced workflow is present (4-step Instructions and 8-step Response Approach), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery loops; the Safety note is a caution rather than a verify-then-proceed checkpoint.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear, but at ~165 lines with no bundle files the skill inlines large enumeration blocks (Capabilities, Behavioral Traits, Knowledge Base) that add bulk without navigation value and could be trimmed or moved out.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Description

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly communicates a focused architecture-review skill with both a what and a when clause in third-person voice. It would benefit from more specific concrete actions and richer natural trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Replace abstract actions with concrete ones, e.g. 'Evaluates service boundaries, identifies architectural anti-patterns, and assesses scalability tradeoffs'.

Expand the trigger clause with natural user phrases such as 'Use when reviewing system designs, evaluating microservices boundaries, or assessing scalability and resilience tradeoffs'.

Drop redundant modifiers like 'Master' that read as fluff and do not add trigger specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the architecture domain and two concrete actions ('Reviews system designs and code changes'), but stops short of a comprehensive list of specific actions; not vague, yet not exhaustive like the score-5 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (reviews designs/code for integrity, scalability, maintainability) and 'when' (Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions) are present; the 'when' is explicit but could be more specific, fitting the score-4 anchor rather than the fully concrete score-5 example.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions' supplies a relevant trigger phrase, but common natural variations a user would say ('review this design', 'is this scalable', 'microservices boundaries') are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The architecture-review niche is clear with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk; only minor overlap with a generic code-review skill keeps it from a 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

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.