CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-arch-system-design

Agent skill for arch-system-design - invoke with $agent-arch-system-design

33

1.00x
Quality

0%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

88%

1.00x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/agent-arch-system-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

0%Scale 1-3

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

This skill is almost entirely YAML frontmatter configuration with a thin body of generic, high-level advice that Claude already knows. It lacks any concrete, actionable guidance—no templates, no executable examples, no specific workflows, and no validation steps. The content reads more like a job description than an instructional skill.

Suggestions

Replace the generic responsibilities and best practices with a concrete, step-by-step workflow (e.g., 1. Analyze requirements → 2. Draft C4 context diagram using specific PlantUML syntax → 3. Write ADR using provided template → 4. Validate completeness against checklist).

Add a concrete ADR template and a PlantUML diagram example that Claude can copy and adapt, rather than just naming these as deliverables.

Remove or drastically reduce the YAML frontmatter—most of it (triggers, hooks, examples, capability lists) is not actionable instruction and wastes token budget.

Add explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Before finalizing, verify: all components have defined interfaces, failure modes are documented, data flow covers all user journeys').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The vast majority of the file is YAML frontmatter that duplicates concepts Claude already knows (what architecture is, what microservices are, trigger patterns, hook scripts). The body content itself is generic advice about system architecture that Claude inherently understands—listing responsibilities like 'design scalable architectures' and 'consider non-functional requirements' adds no novel information.

1 / 3

Actionability

The body contains only vague, abstract guidance with no concrete commands, executable code, specific file templates, or copy-paste-ready examples. Instructions like 'Create system diagrams' and 'Document ADRs' describe what to do without showing how—no ADR template, no diagram syntax example, no specific tool commands.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is no clear multi-step workflow or sequenced process. The content lists categories of deliverables and a decision framework as bullet points, but provides no ordered steps, no validation checkpoints, and no feedback loops for iterating on architectural designs.

1 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is a monolithic mix of an enormous YAML frontmatter block and a flat body with no references to supporting files. There are no links to detailed guides, templates, or examples. No bundle files exist to support progressive disclosure, and the body doesn't organize content into overview vs. detail layers.

1 / 3

Total

4

/

12

Passed

Description

0%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is an extremely weak description that fails on every dimension. It reads as a placeholder or auto-generated stub rather than a functional skill description. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what distinguishes it from other skills.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Designs system architectures, creates component diagrams, evaluates scalability trade-offs, and proposes infrastructure layouts.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about system architecture, distributed systems design, scalability planning, microservices layout, or infrastructure decisions.'

Remove the invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-arch-system-design') from the description as it wastes space that should be used for capability and trigger information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for arch-system-design' is entirely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does.

1 / 3

Completeness

Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only states it's an 'agent skill' and how to invoke it, providing no functional or contextual information.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The only potentially relevant term is 'arch-system-design' which is a technical identifier, not a natural keyword a user would say. No natural language trigger terms like 'architecture', 'system design', 'design patterns', etc. are present.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish it from other architecture or design-related skills. 'Agent skill for arch-system-design' gives no clear niche or distinct triggers.

1 / 3

Total

4

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
ruvnet/claude-flow
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.