agent-load-balancer

Agent skill for load-balancer - invoke with $agent-load-balancer

1.11x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

1.11x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

15%

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

The content is an over-long, monolithic dump of mostly non-executable code and textbook algorithm explanations with no sequenced workflow, no validation steps, and no progressive disclosure. It reads as feature documentation rather than an actionable skill body.

Suggestions

Collapse the body to a concise overview and move the algorithm catalogs into separate reference files (e.g. references/scheduling-algorithms.md, references/work-stealing.md) with clearly signaled one-level links, enabling real progressive disclosure.

Replace the pseudocode that depends on undefined classes/objects with either runnable minimal examples or explicit, justified stubs, and remove the duplicate YAML block at the top of the body.

Add a sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints for the actual load-balancing operation (measure load -> decide migrations -> apply -> verify balance improved), since rebalancing is a batch/state-changing operation that needs a feedback loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~430-line body re-explains algorithms Claude already knows (work-stealing, WFQ, EDF, CFS, circuit breakers, genetic algorithms) and even begins with a stray duplicate YAML block; this matches the score-1 anchor 'Verbose; explains concepts Claude knows; padded with unnecessary context' rather than the tighter score-2 form.	1 / 3
Actionability	The bash `npx claude-flow ...` commands are concrete and runnable, but the bulk of the JavaScript relies on undefined primitives (PriorityQueue, WeightedRoundRobinQueue, RedBlackTree, ConstraintSolver, a global `mcp` object), so it is pseudocode rather than copy-paste-executable, fitting the score-2 anchor 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code'.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The body is a catalog of features/algorithms rather than a sequenced process, and there are no validation or verification checkpoints anywhere, matching the score-1 anchor 'Steps unclear or missing; no sequence for multi-step tasks; no validation mentioned for risky operations'.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	At 430 lines the skill is a monolithic inline wall of text with no references or bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and nothing split out, matching the score-1 anchor 'Monolithic wall of text; poor organization'; the under-50-line simple-skill exemption does not apply.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 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.

The description is a low-information, auto-generated label-plus-invocation string that fails to state concrete capabilities or any usage trigger. It scores at or near the floor on every dimension except a modest distinctiveness from the named niche.

Suggestions

Replace the description with concrete actions, e.g. 'Distribute tasks across agents, steal work from overloaded queues, and rebalance swarm load. Use when tasks are piling up on some agents while others are idle, or when the user asks to balance/redistribute agent workload.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause covering natural phrasings users would actually say ('balance the load', 'redistribute tasks', 'agents are unevenly loaded').

Drop the invocation-token line ('$agent-load-balancer') from the description; it is not a capability statement and adds no trigger value.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "Agent skill for load-balancer" names a domain but lists zero concrete actions (no 'distribute tasks', 'balance load', 'steal work'), matching the score-1 anchor 'Vague or no actions; abstract language' rather than the score-2 example which names multiple actions.	1 / 3
Completeness	"Agent skill for load-balancer" gives only a weak 'what' and provides no 'when'/'Use when...' trigger clause at all, so per the guideline a missing trigger clause with a weak what lands at score 1 ('Missing what OR when, or both very weak').	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only terms are "load-balancer" and the invocation token "$agent-load-balancer"; these are technical/invocation jargon, not natural phrases a user would say, fitting the score-1 anchor 'No natural keywords; technical jargon or overly generic'.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"load-balancer" names a recognizable niche that is unlikely to conflict with most unrelated skills, but the generic phrasing could overlap with sibling optimization agents, matching the score-2 anchor 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.	2 / 3
	Total	5 / 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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: 8ae8752

Reviewed: 2 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.