agent-code-goal-planner

Agent skill for code-goal-planner - invoke with $agent-code-goal-planner

2.28x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

89%

2.28x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-code-goal-planner/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

27%

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

This skill is excessively verbose, attempting to be a comprehensive reference document rather than a focused, actionable skill. It explains numerous concepts Claude already understands (test pyramids, DORA metrics, cyclomatic complexity, git branching strategies) and provides generic template code rather than executable, specific guidance. The content would benefit enormously from being reduced to ~50-80 lines of core planning methodology with detailed patterns split into referenced bundle files.

Suggestions

Reduce the main SKILL.md to a concise overview (~50-80 lines) covering the core SPARC-GOAP planning process, and move detailed patterns (performance optimization, testing strategy, CI/CD goals, metrics frameworks) into separate referenced bundle files.

Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows: test pyramids, DORA metrics, cyclomatic complexity thresholds, git branching strategies, and general software engineering best practices.

Add explicit validation/feedback loops: after each SPARC phase, specify how to verify the phase succeeded and what to do if it fails (e.g., 'If spec validation fails, re-analyze requirements focusing on X').

Make code examples truly executable rather than illustrative templates—the MCP tool calls use invalid syntax, the TypeScript/JavaScript classes are conceptual, and the YAML plans are generic structures rather than actionable configurations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. Explains general software engineering concepts Claude already knows (what test pyramids are, what CI/CD means, what cyclomatic complexity is). Massive amounts of illustrative YAML/code that are generic templates rather than actionable specifics. The SPARC methodology explanation is redundant padding, and metrics frameworks (DORA metrics, code quality thresholds) are common knowledge.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains concrete code examples and CLI commands (npx claude-flow sparc run...), but most are illustrative rather than executable—the TypeScript interfaces, JavaScript classes, and YAML plans are templates/pseudocode showing structure rather than copy-paste-ready implementations. The MCP tool integration block uses invalid syntax (not proper function calls). Many examples describe what to do conceptually rather than providing exact executable steps.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There are numbered sequences (SPARC phases 1-5, bash command sequences), but validation checkpoints are weak—there's no explicit 'if this fails, do X' feedback loop. The skill describes validation conceptually ('validate goal achievement') but never specifies how to check if a step succeeded or what to do on failure. For a planning tool that orchestrates complex multi-step development, the lack of error recovery guidance is a significant gap.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of content with no references to external files despite the massive length. Everything is inlined—the SPARC methodology explanation, multiple planning patterns, metrics frameworks, risk assessment, MCP integration, and workflow examples all live in one enormous file. No bundle files exist to offload detailed reference material, and the content would greatly benefit from splitting into separate reference documents.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

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 description is essentially a label and invocation command with no substantive content. It fails on every dimension: it doesn't describe what the skill does, when to use it, or provide any natural trigger terms. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select this skill from a pool of available skills.

Suggestions

Describe the concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Breaks down coding goals into step-by-step implementation plans, identifies required files and dependencies, and generates task lists for complex code changes.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to plan a coding task, break down a feature into steps, create an implementation roadmap, or organize a complex code change.'

Remove the invocation syntax from the description (or move it to a separate field) and replace it with functional information that helps Claude distinguish this skill from other code-related skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for code-goal-planner' is entirely abstract 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 the skill's name and invocation command, providing no functional or contextual information.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'code-goal-planner' is an internal tool name, not a term users would naturally use in requests. The invocation syntax '$agent-code-goal-planner' is technical jargon.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it could overlap with any code-related or planning-related skill. 'Code-goal-planner' gives a hint of domain but is far too generic to distinguish it from other coding or planning skills.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: 28c81c0

Reviewed: 3 days 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.