error-debugging-multi-agent-review

Use when working with error debugging multi agent review

Quality

31%

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/error-debugging-multi-agent-review/SKILL.md

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 body presents an elaborate multi-agent architecture but delivers it as marketing prose and non-executable pseudocode with no validation loops or external reference files, leaving it verbose and largely unactionable. Conciseness and actionability are the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Replace undefined pseudocode helpers with real, runnable commands or scripts (or move each strategy's logic into actual scripts/ files the skill invokes), so the guidance is executable rather than illustrative.

Cut conceptual/marketing padding (the "Context and Purpose" narrative and Depth/Breadth/Intelligence/Adaptability bullets) and keep only operational guidance Claude does not already know.

Add explicit validation checkpoints and a fix-and-retry loop for the review pipeline (e.g. validate agent outputs, re-run on failures, gate synthesis on passing checks), and split detailed material into reference files linked one level deep from SKILL.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is padded with marketing prose ("sophisticated AI-powered code review system", "holistic code assessments that transcend traditional single-perspective review approaches") and buzzword bullets that add little actionable signal, fitting the noticeably-verbose anchor.	2 / 5
Actionability	Nearly all code blocks are non-functional pseudocode referencing undefined helpers (is_web_application, ConflictResolutionEngine, ReviewOptimizer, QualityScoreCalculator) with no executable path, providing only high-level hints rather than steps Claude can actually run.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Seven coordination strategies are sequenced, but there are no real validation checkpoints or fix-and-retry feedback loops; per the batch-operation cap, this stays at 3 even though the "Quality Validation Framework" section gestures at validation.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The file has reasonable section structure, but no bundle files exist and all detailed strategy pseudocode is inlined; the "Reference Implementations" section lists only stub titles with no actual referenced files.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

28%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 is a bare trigger clause that names a niche domain but never states what the skill actually does, so it fails to answer "what" and offers only minimal trigger terms. Specificity and completeness are the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Add a concrete statement of what the skill does, e.g. "Orchestrates multiple specialized review agents to analyze code for security, architecture, performance, and quality issues."

Replace the generic "working with" with explicit natural-language triggers users would say, such as "Use when you need a multi-perspective code review, want security and architecture analysis of a codebase, or are debugging cross-cutting code-quality issues."

Include recognizable synonyms/file cues (e.g. "code review", "PR review", "repository analysis") to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names a domain ("error debugging multi agent review") but provides no concrete actions beyond the generic verb "working with", matching the anchor that names the domain with minimal/generic actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	Only a "when" trigger is present ("Use when working with...") with no statement of what the skill does, exactly matching the anchor where only "when" is present without "what".	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"error debugging" is a somewhat natural phrase but "multi agent review" is technical jargon, yielding only one or two generic keywords while missing the natural phrasings a user would actually say.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"multi agent review" carves out a somewhat specific niche that is distinguishable from generic skills, but the vague phrasing leaves overlap risk with adjacent debugging or review skills.	3 / 5
	Total	9 / 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/error-debugging-multi-agent-review/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.