agent-code-analyzer

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

2.05x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

80%

2.05x

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-code-analyzer/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 distinguishes it from other skills. It reads as a placeholder rather than a functional description.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes code for complexity metrics, identifies code smells, reviews dependencies, and generates quality reports.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to analyze code quality, review code structure, check for code smells, measure complexity, or audit a codebase.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-code-analyzer') 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 code-analyzer' is entirely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does beyond referencing its own name.	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 'code-analyzer', which is the skill's own name rather than a natural term a user would say. There are no natural language trigger terms like 'analyze code', 'review code', 'static analysis', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so generic that it could conflict with any code-related skill. 'Code-analyzer' is broad and undefined, making it impossible to distinguish from other code analysis or review tools.	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 descriptive overview or marketing document for a code analysis agent rather than an actionable skill file. It extensively catalogs what code analysis involves (concepts Claude already knows well) without providing concrete, executable instructions for how to actually perform analysis. The bash commands are incomplete placeholders, and the workflow lacks any real operational specificity or validation steps.

Suggestions

Replace the extensive categorization lists (Core Responsibilities, Analysis Metrics, Best Practices) with specific, executable commands and tool configurations that Claude should use for each type of analysis.

Add concrete validation checkpoints to the workflow, e.g., 'Run `npx eslint . --format json` and check exit code before proceeding to security scan'.

Remove explanations of well-known concepts (SQL injection, cyclomatic complexity, memory leaks) and instead provide the specific tool invocations and flag configurations to detect them.

Extract the detailed metrics lists and example output templates into separate reference files, keeping SKILL.md focused on the operational workflow with clear pointers to those references.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with extensive lists of concepts Claude already knows (what cyclomatic complexity is, what SQL injection is, what memory leaks are). The bulk of the content is descriptive categorization rather than actionable instruction. The 'Core Responsibilities' section is essentially a taxonomy of code analysis concepts that adds no operational value.	1 / 3
Actionability	Despite its length, the skill provides almost no executable guidance. The bash commands reference a specific tool (`claude-flow@alpha`) but are incomplete placeholders with template variables like `${results}` and `${summary}`. The 'Analysis Workflow' phases describe what to do abstractly ('Run linters and type checkers') without specifying which tools, commands, or configurations to use. The example analysis output is a template, not an executable procedure.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	While phases are labeled (Initial Scan, Deep Analysis, Report Generation), the actual steps within each phase are vague checklists rather than sequenced operations. There are no validation checkpoints, no error recovery steps, and no feedback loops. The workflow reads more like a table of contents than an operational procedure.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All content is inline regardless of relevance, mixing high-level overview with detailed metric lists and example outputs. There is no layered structure or navigation to deeper resources.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 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/ruflo
Commit: 367cb82

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.