c4-architecture-c4-architecture

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

Quality

53%

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

50%

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

The body lays out a clear, well-structured four-phase bottom-up workflow with concrete subagent calls and output conventions, but it is verbose, monolithic, and lacks inter-phase validation gates. Trimming redundancy, extracting the repeated prompt templates into reference files, and adding verification checkpoints between phases would materially raise the scores.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant extended-thinking paragraph and the generic 'Use this skill when / Do not use' filler, since the overview and phase sections already convey the same information.

Add explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g. verify every c4-code-*.md exists before component synthesis; verify the component index resolves before container mapping) with a re-run-on-failure loop.

Extract the four large subagent prompt templates into separate reference files (e.g. references/code-prompt.md) and reference them from the main body to reduce monolithic inline content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is actionable but padded: the extended-thinking paragraph and the tautological 'Use/Do not use this skill when' sections restate what the rest of the document already conveys, and the four phase prompts repeat shared structure rather than earning every token.	2 / 3
Actionability	It gives concrete subagent invocations, exact output paths, and detailed templates, but the actual commands are Task-tool prompts filled with placeholders ([directory_path], [List of ...]) rather than copy-paste-ready executable code.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The four bottom-up phases are clearly sequenced with per-phase expected outputs and a final Success Criteria checklist, but there are no mid-process validate→fix→retry checkpoints between phases for what is a batch file-generation workflow, which caps this at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single ~380-line monolithic file with all four phase templates inline; no bundle/reference files exist, and content such as the reusable subagent prompt templates is not split out into one-level-deep references.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

57%

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 names a distinctive niche and what the skill does, but it lacks any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and only names a single concrete action. Adding a Use-when clause and a broader set of natural trigger terms would lift it.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming when Claude should select this skill, e.g. generating architecture docs, reverse-engineering a system's structure, or producing C4 context/container/component diagrams.

Enumerate the concrete deliverables the skill produces (code, component, container, and context docs plus OpenAPI specs) so specificity and completeness both improve.

Include natural trigger-term variations users actually say ('architecture documentation', 'C4 model', 'system context diagram', 'architecture diagrams') alongside the current wording.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the C4 architecture domain and one concrete action ('Generate comprehensive C4 architecture documentation') but does not list multiple distinct concrete actions, so it stops at the 'some actions' anchor rather than the comprehensive level.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'C4 architecture documentation' and 'repository/codebase', but misses common natural variations users would say (e.g. 'architecture docs', 'diagrams', 'system context'), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'C4 architecture documentation' is a clear, narrow niche with a distinctive trigger unlikely to overlap with unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 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: e63f7dd

Reviewed: about 4 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.