c4-architecture-c4-architecture

Generate comprehensive C4 architecture documentation for an existing repository/codebase using a bottom-up analysis approach.

Quality

55%

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-architecture-c4-architecture/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 body delivers a well-sequenced, actionable four-phase orchestration workflow with concrete subagent prompts and output paths. Its main weaknesses are generic filler sections, the absence of validation checkpoints for a batch operation, and no use of reference files to offload the lengthy prompt templates.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g., verify all c4-code-*.md files exist and are non-empty before starting Phase 2 synthesis; re-validate after each phase).

Remove or replace the generic 'Instructions' and 'Use/Do not use this skill when' filler with skill-specific guidance, and drop the redundant Coordination Notes that restate the phases.

Move the long per-phase subagent prompt templates into reference files (e.g., references/code-prompt.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core phase prompts are concrete and non-padded, but generic filler sections ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.') and redundant Coordination Notes that restate the phases add unnecessary length, fitting anchor 3's 'mostly efficient but some unnecessary explanation'.	3 / 5
Actionability	Each phase gives exact Task-tool invocations with concrete subagent_type values, copy-paste prompt templates, and explicit output file paths, matching anchor 4's 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'; not a 5 because prompt templates still contain unfilled placeholders like [directory_path].	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The four phases are clearly sequenced with numbered substeps and expected outputs, but this is a batch operation (processing every subdirectory) with no per-step validation/verification checkpoints, which per the rubric caps workflow_clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Headers organize the content into clear sections, but the ~380-line body is entirely inlined with no bundle files, and the large per-phase prompt templates are content that could plausibly live in separate reference files, fitting anchor 3's 'some structure but could be better organized'.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 states what the skill does and targets a distinct niche, but it lacks any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and offers only a single concrete action with limited keyword variation. Adding explicit trigger phrases and a couple more concrete actions would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers (e.g., 'Use when generating C4 architecture diagrams, documenting a codebase's structure, or producing system context/container/component diagrams').

Expand the action list beyond 'generate documentation' to specific deliverables (e.g., 'produce code-level, component, container, and context diagrams with OpenAPI specs').

Include natural synonym keywords users might say, such as 'architecture diagrams', 'C4 model', and 'system context diagram'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('C4 architecture documentation') and one concrete action ('Generate... documentation') plus a method ('bottom-up analysis approach'), matching anchor 3's 'domain and 1-2 concrete actions'; not a 2 because the action is more specific than 'Processes PDF files', and not a 4 because coverage is not comprehensive (single action).	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear ('Generate comprehensive C4 architecture documentation...') but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'C4 architecture documentation' and 'repository/codebase' are relevant natural keywords, but common variations/synonyms like 'architecture diagrams', 'C4 model', or 'system context' are missing, fitting anchor 3 rather than the fuller coverage of 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'C4 architecture documentation' is a clear, fairly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk, though 'architecture documentation' could slightly overlap with general documentation skills, placing it just below the fully-distinct anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/c4-architecture-c4-architecture/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 1 day 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.