agent-production-validator

Agent skill for production-validator - invoke with $agent-production-validator

1.22x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.22x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-production-validator/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 all dimensions. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what triggers should activate it. It reads as a placeholder rather than a functional description.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what 'production-validator' actually does, e.g., 'Validates deployment configurations, checks service health, verifies production readiness before releases.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about validating production deployments, checking release readiness, or verifying production configurations.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-production-validator') from the description, as this is operational detail that doesn't help Claude decide when to select the skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for production-validator' is entirely vague and does not describe 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, providing no functional or contextual information.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only keyword is 'production-validator', which is a technical/internal name rather than a natural term a user would say. There are no natural language trigger terms like 'validate', 'deploy', 'check production', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish it from other skills. 'Production-validator' hints at a domain but without any specifics, it could conflict with any validation or production-related skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

14%

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

This skill is an overly verbose collection of illustrative TypeScript test examples that Claude could generate on its own. It lacks a clear sequential workflow, has no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the production validation process itself, and dumps all content into a single monolithic file. The code examples contain syntax issues and are more template-like than executable.

Suggestions

Replace the extensive code templates with a concise, ordered workflow: (1) scan for mocks → (2) verify environment → (3) run integration tests → (4) validate security → (5) confirm deployment readiness, with explicit pass/fail gates between steps.

Remove or drastically shorten the illustrative code examples (CRUD tests, Redis tests, email tests) — Claude knows how to write these. Instead, focus on the specific patterns, thresholds, and project-specific conventions that Claude wouldn't know.

Add explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops (e.g., 'If mock patterns found, stop and list files; do not proceed to integration testing until resolved').

Split detailed test examples into separate reference files (e.g., INTEGRATION_TESTS.md, SECURITY_TESTS.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with navigation links.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. Most code examples are illustrative templates that Claude already knows how to write (standard Jest tests, CRUD operations, Redis get/set, etc.). The content explains obvious concepts like what mock patterns look like and how to do basic database CRUD, which wastes significant token budget.	1 / 3
Actionability	The code examples are syntactically reasonable TypeScript/Jest patterns, but they are not truly executable — they reference undefined variables (validToken, app), use placeholder environment variables, and contain regex syntax errors (dollar signs replacing slashes). They serve more as templates/pseudocode than copy-paste-ready implementations.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no clear sequential workflow for how to actually perform production validation. The content is organized as a collection of independent code snippets and checklists without a defined order, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops. For a destructive/critical operation like production validation, the lack of a step-by-step process with explicit gates is a significant gap.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The entire skill is a monolithic wall of code examples with no references to external files and no layered structure. All content — from basic mock scanning to performance load testing to security validation — is dumped into a single file with no navigation aids or separation of concerns.	1 / 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: 5 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.