agent-swarm-issue

Agent skill for swarm-issue - invoke with $agent-swarm-issue

2.93x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

2.93x

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-swarm-issue/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 provides essentially no useful information about the skill's purpose, capabilities, or when it should be used. It reads as a placeholder or auto-generated stub rather than a functional description. Claude would have no basis for selecting this skill appropriately from a list of available skills.

Suggestions

Describe what the skill actually does with concrete actions (e.g., 'Creates, triages, and manages swarm issues in the issue tracker' or whatever the actual functionality is).

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe the situations and user requests that should activate this skill.

Replace the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-swarm-issue') with functional details—invocation syntax is not useful for skill selection and wastes description space.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for swarm-issue' 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 'swarm-issue' which is a technical/internal term, not something a user would naturally say. There are no natural language trigger terms.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish it from other skills. 'Agent skill' could apply to virtually anything, and 'swarm-issue' is undefined in the description.	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 is an aspirational feature catalog rather than actionable guidance. It references a fictional CLI tool ('npx ruv-swarm') extensively, making nearly all code examples non-executable. The content is massively bloated at 400+ lines with redundant sections, no validation checkpoints, and poor organization—everything is inlined into a single monolithic document that would consume significant context window for minimal practical value.

Suggestions

Remove or replace all 'npx ruv-swarm' commands with actual executable code using the declared MCP tools (mcp__github__*, mcp__claude-flow__*) and gh CLI, since the ruv-swarm CLI appears fictional

Reduce content to under 100 lines by extracting the automation examples, GitHub Actions workflows, issue templates, and label rules into separate referenced files

Add a clear, sequential primary workflow (e.g., 'How to process a single issue') with explicit validation steps and error handling at each stage

Fix MCP tool call syntax to use proper invocation format rather than pseudo-JSON objects, and provide at least one complete end-to-end example that actually works with the declared tools

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at 400+ lines with massive amounts of speculative/aspirational content. Most commands reference a fictional 'npx ruv-swarm' CLI tool with dozens of subcommands that likely don't exist. Enormous redundancy across sections (issue-init appears multiple times with slight variations). Explains concepts Claude already knows and includes sections like 'Best Practices' with generic advice.	1 / 3
Actionability	Almost none of the code is executable. The skill references 'npx ruv-swarm' extensively—a tool that appears to be fictional or at minimum undocumented. The MCP tool calls use invalid syntax (JSON-like objects without proper formatting). The gh CLI examples are more realistic but are wrapped in fictional pipeline commands. No concrete, copy-paste-ready workflows that would actually work.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Despite having many code blocks, there is no clear sequential workflow with validation checkpoints. The skill presents a sprawling catalog of disconnected commands without explaining when or why to use each one. No error handling, no validation steps, no feedback loops for the multi-step processes described. The 'Progress Tracking' section shows steps but lacks any verification that operations succeeded.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of content with 15+ sections all inline. Content that should be in separate reference files (label automation rules, GitHub Actions workflows, issue templates, automation examples) is all dumped into the main skill file. The cross-references at the bottom are good but the body itself desperately needs splitting. The sheer volume makes it nearly impossible to navigate.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (578 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Commit: f547cec

Reviewed: 3 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.