agent-implementer-sparc-coder
Agent skill for implementer-sparc-coder - invoke with $agent-implementer-sparc-coder
33
6%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
69%
1.09xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-implementer-sparc-coder/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 virtually no useful information for skill selection. It only contains an invocation command and a generic label, failing to describe any capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. This would be nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select from a pool of available skills.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does (e.g., 'Implements code following the SPARC methodology, breaking down tasks into specification, pseudocode, architecture, refinement, and completion phases').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for code implementation, building features, writing functions, or developing software components').
Include domain-specific keywords users would naturally use, such as 'code', 'implement', 'build', 'develop', 'write code', 'programming', along with any specific languages or frameworks supported.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It only states it's an 'agent skill' with an invocation command, 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 provides an invocation command with no explanation of purpose or trigger conditions. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'implementer-sparc-coder' is internal jargon/a tool name, not something a user would naturally request. No domain terms, file types, or action words are present. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish from any other agent skill. The name 'sparc-coder' hints at coding but provides no specifics to differentiate it from other coding-related skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
12%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads like a generic software engineering textbook rather than actionable agent instructions. It extensively explains concepts Claude already knows (SOLID, TDD, error handling patterns, dependency injection) while failing to provide project-specific, executable guidance. The pseudocode workflow notation is non-standard and not actionable, and the entire content is a monolithic document with no progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Remove all generic software engineering principles Claude already knows (SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, basic TDD explanation) and focus only on project-specific conventions, tool invocations, and constraints unique to this codebase.
Replace pseudocode workflow notation (e.g., `Write("tests$unit$auth.test.js", authTestSuite)`) with actual tool calls or concrete commands that Claude can execute directly.
Split content into a concise SKILL.md overview with references to separate files for code patterns (PATTERNS.md), optimization guidelines (OPTIMIZATION.md), and documentation standards (DOCS.md).
Add explicit validation checkpoints with error recovery steps—e.g., what to do when tests fail after implementation, how to diagnose and fix issues before proceeding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanation of concepts Claude already knows well (TDD, SOLID, KISS, DRY, YAGNI, error handling patterns, dependency injection). The implementation guidelines section literally just lists acronym definitions. Code patterns shown are generic textbook examples that add no project-specific value. Much of this is padding that wastes context window. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite containing code snippets, none are truly executable or copy-paste ready—they use pseudocode-like notation (e.g., `Write("tests$unit$auth.test.js", authTestSuite)`) and generic placeholder patterns. The workflow phases describe abstract concepts rather than concrete steps Claude should take. Comments like '// Implementation' and '// Arrange, Act, Assert' are placeholders, not actionable guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-phase TDD workflow (Red → Green → Refactor) provides a clear sequence, and there's a verification step (run tests) after each phase. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints for error recovery, no guidance on what to do when tests fail unexpectedly, and the workflow uses non-standard pseudocode notation that obscures the actual steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content—code patterns, optimization strategies, documentation standards, integration patterns—is inlined in a single massive document. There's no hierarchy or navigation structure; sections like 'Performance Optimization' and 'Documentation Standards' could easily be separate reference files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 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
f547cec
- 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.