agent-orchestrator-task

Agent skill for orchestrator-task - invoke with $agent-orchestrator-task

1.32x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

82%

1.32x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-orchestrator-task/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 is an extremely weak description that fails on every dimension. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what distinguishes it from other skills. It reads more like an internal label than a functional description.

Suggestions

Replace the entire description with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Breaks down complex tasks into subtasks, delegates work to specialized agents, and aggregates results.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe scenarios where this skill should be selected, e.g., 'Use when the user requests multi-step workflows, task decomposition, or coordination across multiple agents.'

Remove the invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-orchestrator-task') from the description, as it does not help Claude decide when to select this skill and adds noise.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for orchestrator-task' is entirely abstract and gives no indication of 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 it's an 'agent skill' and how to invoke it, with no explanation of purpose or trigger conditions.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only terms present are 'orchestrator-task' and '$agent-orchestrator-task', which are internal/technical jargon. No natural user-facing keywords are included that a user would actually say.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so generic ('agent skill for orchestrator-task') that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. It could conflict with any orchestration or task-management skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

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

This skill reads as a high-level conceptual overview or product specification rather than actionable instructions for Claude. It explains what a task orchestrator does in abstract terms but never tells Claude how to actually perform orchestration—no concrete commands, no tool usage patterns, no executable examples, and no validation steps. The content would need a fundamental rewrite to be useful as a skill.

Suggestions

Replace abstract descriptions with concrete, executable instructions: specify exactly which tools (TodoWrite, memory_store, SubAgentTool, etc.) to use and provide copy-paste ready examples of orchestration workflows.

Add a concrete worked example showing a real task being decomposed, with actual tool calls, state tracking commands, and expected outputs at each step.

Remove sections that explain concepts Claude already knows (what task decomposition is, what parallelization means) and replace with specific decision criteria and implementation patterns.

Add validation checkpoints and error recovery steps to the task patterns—e.g., what to do when a subtask fails, how to verify results before proceeding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is verbose and largely describes abstract concepts Claude already understands (task decomposition, dependency management, parallelization). Sections like 'Core Functionality' and 'Best Practices' explain general orchestration concepts without providing any novel, specific instructions. Much of this reads like a product description rather than actionable guidance.	1 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides no executable code, no concrete commands, no specific tool invocations, and no copy-paste ready examples. The 'Usage Examples' are just natural language prompts, and the 'Task Patterns' are abstract pseudocode outlines with no actual implementation details. There is nothing Claude can directly execute.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	While task patterns list numbered steps, they are abstract labels (e.g., 'Requirements Analysis (Sequential)') with no concrete actions, validation checkpoints, or error recovery steps. There is no guidance on what tools to use, how to track state, or how to handle failures. The workflow is descriptive rather than prescriptive.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is organized with clear section headers and logical groupings, which provides some structure. However, it's a monolithic document with no references to external files, and several sections (like the full list of integration points and advanced features) could be split out. No bundle files exist to reference.	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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: e6dc21f

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.