agent-implementer-sparc-coder
Agent skill for implementer-sparc-coder - invoke with $agent-implementer-sparc-coder
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:ruvnet/claude-flow --skill agent-implementer-sparc-coder38
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillEvaluation — 69%
↑ 1.09xAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
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 description is critically deficient across all dimensions. It functions only as an invocation reference rather than a functional description, providing no information about capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. Claude would have no basis for selecting this skill appropriately from a pool of available skills.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does (e.g., 'Implements code following SPARC methodology, generates modular components, writes tests')
Include a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to implement features, write code, or build components using SPARC principles')
Remove or relocate the invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-implementer-sparc-coder') as it doesn't help with skill selection and wastes description space
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for implementer-sparc-coder' is completely abstract and doesn't describe what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. It only provides invocation syntax, not functional information or usage triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only terms present are technical jargon ('implementer-sparc-coder', '$agent-implementer-sparc-coder') that users would never naturally say. No natural keywords like 'code', 'implement', 'build', or domain-specific terms are included. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish from other skills. 'Agent skill' could apply to any agent-based functionality, and 'implementer' is too generic without context. | 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 is excessively verbose, explaining fundamental programming concepts (TDD, SOLID, DRY) that Claude already knows well. The code examples are illustrative templates rather than executable implementations, and the document lacks proper progressive disclosure - everything is crammed into one long file. The workflow structure exists but lacks explicit validation checkpoints and error recovery guidance.
Suggestions
Remove explanations of basic concepts Claude knows (TDD, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI) and focus only on project-specific conventions or non-obvious patterns
Replace pseudocode workflow notation with actual executable commands or scripts that can be copy-pasted
Split content into separate files: keep SKILL.md as a concise overview, move code patterns to PATTERNS.md, optimization strategies to OPTIMIZATION.md, etc.
Add explicit validation checkpoints with error recovery steps (e.g., 'If tests fail: check error output, fix implementation, re-run tests before proceeding')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanations of concepts Claude already knows (TDD, SOLID principles, DRY, KISS, YAGNI). Contains redundant sections like 'Best Practices' and 'Implementation Guidelines' that restate basic programming knowledge. The YAML frontmatter hooks add unnecessary complexity. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Contains some concrete code patterns and examples, but they are generic templates rather than executable, copy-paste ready code. The workflow phases use pseudocode notation (e.g., 'Write("tests$unit$auth.test.js", authTestSuite)') that isn't actually executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Red-Green-Refactor phases are listed with some structure, but validation checkpoints are weak. The workflow shows running tests but lacks explicit error recovery steps or what to do when tests fail. No clear feedback loops for handling implementation failures. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including patterns, best practices, optimization strategies, and documentation standards that could be split into separate reference files. No navigation structure for discovery. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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.
- 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.