agent-consensus-coordinator

Agent skill for consensus-coordinator - invoke with $agent-consensus-coordinator

7.38x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

7.38x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-consensus-coordinator/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

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 critically deficient across all dimensions. It provides only a name and invocation command without explaining what the skill does, when to use it, or any natural trigger terms. This would make it nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select this skill from a pool of available options.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what consensus-coordinator does (e.g., 'Facilitates group decision-making by collecting votes, synthesizing opinions, and identifying agreement points')

Include a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say (e.g., 'Use when users need to reach agreement, coordinate decisions, gather team input, or resolve conflicting opinions')

Remove the invocation syntax from the description field - this belongs in usage documentation, not in the selection-focused description

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for consensus-coordinator' is completely abstract with no indication of what the skill actually does.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. It only provides invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-consensus-coordinator') without explaining functionality or use cases.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only potential trigger term is 'consensus-coordinator' which is technical jargon, not a natural phrase users would say. No common user language like 'agree', 'vote', 'decide together', or similar terms are present.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	While 'consensus-coordinator' sounds specific, without any explanation of what it does, it's impossible to distinguish from other coordination or collaboration skills. The vagueness creates high conflict risk.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

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

This skill suffers from severe verbosity, explaining distributed systems concepts Claude already understands while burying actionable guidance in walls of text. The code examples are partially useful but incomplete, and the lack of any file organization or progressive disclosure makes this difficult to navigate. The content would benefit from aggressive trimming and restructuring into a concise overview with linked reference files.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 70%+ by removing explanations of known concepts (Byzantine fault tolerance, CAP theorem, consensus basics) and keeping only project-specific implementation details

Complete the code examples with actual implementations of helper methods, or remove them and show only the MCP tool call patterns

Split content into separate files: SKILL.md (overview + quick start), PROTOCOLS.md (consensus algorithms), INTEGRATION.md (Flow Nexus patterns), EXAMPLES.md (complete workflows)

Add explicit validation checkpoints to workflows, especially for distributed operations that can fail (e.g., 'Verify consensus reached before proceeding', 'Check for Byzantine node detection results')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with extensive explanations of concepts Claude already knows (Byzantine fault tolerance, consensus protocols, CAP theorem). Contains massive amounts of boilerplate descriptions and bullet-point lists that add little actionable value. The document is over 300 lines when it could be under 100.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains JavaScript code examples that appear executable, but many are pseudocode-like with undefined helper methods (e.g., buildConsensusMatrix, extractAgreement, calculateReliability). The MCP tool calls show concrete syntax but lack complete, copy-paste ready implementations.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Lists workflow steps in sections like 'Enterprise Consensus Deployment' and 'Blockchain Network Setup' but these are high-level bullet points without validation checkpoints or error recovery. The code examples lack explicit validation steps for distributed operations that could fail.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including detailed API patterns, integration examples, and advanced algorithms that should be split into separate reference documents. No clear navigation structure for finding specific information.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 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: b2618f9

Reviewed: 4 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.