CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-performance-analyzer

Agent skill for performance-analyzer - invoke with $agent-performance-analyzer

43

1.00x
Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.00x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

20%

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

The body reads as a conceptual overview of a performance-analyzer agent rather than an actionable skill: it is padded with general knowledge Claude already has and contains no executable code, commands, or validation steps. Its one strength is clear sectioning and a recognizable phased workflow, which keeps workflow clarity and progressive disclosure at the mid level.

Suggestions

Cut the conceptual padding (bottleneck types, optimization strategies, best practices, advanced features) that Claude already knows, and keep only skill-specific, non-obvious guidance to improve conciseness.

Replace the numbered-text pseudo-workflows with concrete, executable steps — actual commands, tool calls, or metric-collection snippets — so the guidance is actionable rather than descriptive.

Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints to the analysis workflow (e.g. confirm metrics collected before analyzing, verify a baseline exists before recommending) to raise workflow clarity above 2.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~175-line body explains concepts Claude already knows (bottleneck types, optimization strategies, KPIs, best practices) with no skill-specific, non-obvious information, matching the verbose/padded-with-unnecessary-context anchor.

1 / 3

Actionability

There is no executable code or concrete command anywhere; the "workflows" are plain numbered text inside code fences (e.g. "1. Gather execution metrics"), so it describes rather than instructs, matching the vague/abstract anchor.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Three sequenced phases (Data Collection, Analysis, Recommendation) are clearly listed, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops, matching the "steps listed but validation gaps" anchor rather than the missing-sequence anchor below.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned (better than the poor-organization anchor) but is a monolithic single file over 50 lines with no external references, and content like advanced features, examples, and KPIs that could be split is inline, matching the structure-present-but-could-be-better-organized anchor.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

7%

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 essentially a label plus an invocation token: it states no concrete actions, includes no natural trigger terms, and omits any "when to use" guidance, leaving the what and when both weak. It only narrowly avoids the lowest distinctiveness score by naming a specific performance-analysis niche.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description to list concrete actions in third person, e.g. "Identifies and resolves performance bottlenecks in agent workflows by profiling execution time, resource usage, and coordination overhead."

Add an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause naming natural terms users would say, such as "Use when the user mentions slow tasks, bottlenecks, agent coordination delays, or workflow performance."

Remove the "$agent-performance-analyzer" invocation syntax from the description; invocation mechanics do not belong in the user-facing description and dilute trigger-term quality.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "Agent skill for performance-analyzer" only labels a domain without naming any concrete actions; per the guideline to score only what is explicit, no verbs or capabilities are stated, matching the vague/abstract anchor.

1 / 3

Completeness

The "what" is merely a label ("Agent skill for performance-analyzer") and there is no "Use when..." clause or any trigger guidance for "when", so both what and when are weak/missing per the capping guideline.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"invoke with $agent-performance-analyzer" is invocation syntax rather than natural user language, and no common terms a user would say (e.g. "performance", "bottleneck", "slow") appear, matching the technical-jargon/no-natural-keywords anchor.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It names a "performance" niche that is somewhat distinguishable from unrelated skills, but provides no distinct trigger language and could still overlap with other analysis skills, matching the "somewhat specific but could overlap" anchor.

2 / 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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
ruvnet/claude-flow
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.