cqrs-implementation

Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures. Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems.

Quality

72%

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/cqrs-implementation/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 is concise and sensibly organized with clear use/don't-use framing, but the guidance stays high-level and leans on a playbook reference that is not actually present in the bundle. Adding the missing reference file and tightening the workflow with explicit validation feedback loops would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Provide the missing `resources/implementation-playbook.md` so the referenced detailed patterns and templates resolve, or remove the dangling reference.

Strengthen the Instructions sequence into numbered steps with an explicit validation feedback loop (e.g. 'If validation fails, fix the projection and re-validate') to improve workflow clarity.

Add at least one concrete artifact in the body — a sample command/model split or a projection snippet — so the guidance is actionable before the user opens the playbook.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with tight bullet guidance and no extended concept explanation, but the opening line 'Comprehensive guide to implementing CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation) patterns' mildly restates the title and expands an acronym Claude already knows, leaving minor trimming opportunities short of level 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The instruction bullets ('Identify read/write workloads', 'Define command and query models', 'Implement read model projections') are directional rather than concrete, and the detailed playbook that would supply specifics is referenced but not present, leaving key execution detail missing per the level-3 anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A logical identify-define-implement-validate sequence exists with a validation step, but the steps are unnumbered bullets and lack an explicit feedback loop ('if validation fails, fix and retry'), matching the level-3 anchor of sequence present but checkpoints implicit.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and the playbook is clearly signaled as a one-level-deep reference, but the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist in the bundle, so the navigation promise is unfulfilled, capping it at level 3.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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.

A strong, well-structured description that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it with concrete trigger phrases, using appropriate third-person voice. Minor room for more comprehensive action and synonym coverage, but it is highly distinctive and actionable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (CQRS) and lists several concrete actions/scenarios — 'separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems' — with only minor coverage gaps, matching the 'lists several specific actions' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive level 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures') and when ('Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the level-5 anchor exactly.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage with natural terms a user would say — 'read and write models', 'query performance', 'event-sourced systems', 'scalable architectures' — though a few synonyms (e.g. 'event sourcing', 'read/write separation') are absent, placing it just below comprehensive level 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	CQRS is a clear niche with distinct triggers ('Command Query Responsibility Segregation', 'event-sourced systems') and minimal overlap risk with other skills, matching the level-5 anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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/cqrs-implementation/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.