agent-automation-smart-agent
Agent skill for automation-smart-agent - invoke with $agent-automation-smart-agent
35
0%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.07xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-automation-smart-agent/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 provides essentially no useful information. It fails on every dimension: it doesn't describe what the skill does, when to use it, or include any natural trigger terms. It reads more like a placeholder or auto-generated stub than a functional skill description.
Suggestions
Replace the entire description with concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Automates browser interactions, runs scheduled tasks, orchestrates multi-step workflows' — whatever the skill actually does).
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe scenarios where this skill should be selected (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to automate repetitive tasks, schedule jobs, or create workflow pipelines').
Remove the invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-automation-smart-agent') from the description — this is operational metadata, not selection criteria, and wastes space that should describe capabilities.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for automation-smart-agent' is entirely vague and abstract, providing no information about what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only states how to invoke it ('$agent-automation-smart-agent') without explaining its purpose or trigger conditions. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'automation-smart-agent' is technical jargon/an internal identifier, not something a user would naturally mention in a request. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'automation' is extremely generic and could overlap with virtually any automation-related skill. There is nothing distinctive about this description to differentiate it from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads as a high-level product specification or marketing document rather than an actionable skill for Claude. It describes what an intelligent agent coordinator would do in abstract terms but provides zero executable guidance, concrete commands, or real code. The content is entirely aspirational—referencing ML models, predictive spawning, and capability learning—without any grounding in actual implementation steps or tools.
Suggestions
Replace all pseudocode blocks with actual executable code or concrete CLI commands that Claude can run to spawn, manage, and coordinate agents.
Add a concrete, step-by-step workflow with validation checkpoints for the primary use case (e.g., analyzing a task and spawning appropriate agents), including error handling and feedback loops.
Remove all abstract/conceptual sections (e.g., 'Machine Learning Integration', 'Multi-Objective Optimization') that describe aspirational features without actionable instructions—Claude already understands these concepts.
Define the actual tools, APIs, or commands available (e.g., what does 'memory_retrieve' do, how does agent spawning actually work) so Claude can take concrete action rather than role-playing capabilities.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with conceptual explanations Claude already knows. Sections like 'Intelligence Features', 'Machine Learning Integration', and 'Best Practices' describe abstract concepts without providing any executable or actionable content. The entire document reads like a product brochure rather than a skill instruction. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete, executable code or commands anywhere. All code blocks are pseudocode or abstract diagrams (e.g., 'Task Requirements → Capability Analysis → Agent Selection'). The 'Usage Examples' section describes what should happen in natural language but never shows how to actually do it. There are no real commands, APIs, or copy-paste-ready instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No clear multi-step workflow with sequenced steps or validation checkpoints. The document describes capabilities and patterns abstractly but never provides a concrete sequence of actions to follow. There are no feedback loops, error recovery steps, or validation points despite describing complex operations like agent spawning and scaling. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All content is inline with no clear hierarchy or navigation structure. The document is over 150 lines of abstract descriptions that could benefit significantly from being split into focused, actionable sub-documents. | 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- ruvnet/claude-flow
- Commit
e6dc21f
- 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.