agent-code-goal-planner

Agent skill for code-goal-planner - invoke with $agent-code-goal-planner

2.28x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

89%

2.28x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-code-goal-planner/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 description is essentially non-functional as a skill selector. It provides only the tool name and invocation syntax without describing any capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. Claude would have no basis for choosing this skill appropriately from a list of available skills.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Breaks down complex coding goals into step-by-step implementation plans, identifies dependencies, and creates task sequences.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to plan a coding project, break down a feature into tasks, or create an implementation roadmap.'

Remove the invocation syntax from the description (it's operational detail, not selection criteria) and replace with user-facing language describing the skill's purpose and scope.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for code-goal-planner' is entirely abstract 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 provides the invocation command, with no explanation of capabilities or trigger conditions.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'code-goal-planner' is an internal tool name, not a term users would naturally use in requests. The description focuses on invocation syntax rather than searchable terms.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The term 'code-goal-planner' is vague enough to overlap with any coding, planning, or goal-setting skill. Without specific capabilities or triggers, it cannot be reliably distinguished from other skills.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

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

This skill is severely bloated, containing extensive content that Claude already knows (software engineering concepts, metrics frameworks, testing strategies) mixed with tool-specific commands that could be valuable. The SPARC-GOAP integration concept is repeated in at least 4 different ways (prose, YAML, TypeScript, JavaScript class), creating significant redundancy. The skill would benefit enormously from being reduced to its core actionable content—the specific CLI commands and MCP tool invocations—with everything else either removed or split into reference files.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 70-80%: Remove explanations of well-known concepts (GOAP, test pyramids, DORA metrics, git branching, sprint planning) and keep only the specific tool commands and integration patterns unique to this system.

Consolidate the SPARC-GOAP workflow into a single, clear sequential example instead of repeating it in prose, YAML, TypeScript, JavaScript class, and bash command forms.

Split detailed reference material (metrics frameworks, planning patterns, risk assessment templates) into separate linked files, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with navigation.

Add explicit error handling and validation feedback loops: what happens when a SPARC phase fails, how to diagnose issues, and concrete recovery steps.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~350+ lines. Massive amounts of content that Claude already knows (GOAP methodology, sprint planning concepts, git branching, test pyramids, DORA metrics). Multiple redundant sections explain the same SPARC-GOAP integration pattern repeatedly. The skill could be reduced to ~20% of its size without losing actionable information.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains concrete code examples and CLI commands (npx claude-flow sparc run..., MCP tool calls), but much of it is illustrative rather than executable—TypeScript interfaces, JavaScript classes, and YAML configs that are templates/pseudocode rather than copy-paste ready. The actual tool invocations are specific but it's unclear which are real vs aspirational.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There are numbered sequences (SPARC phases 1-5, bash command sequences), but validation checkpoints are vague ('validate goal achievement') rather than concrete. No feedback loops for error recovery—if a SPARC phase fails, there's no guidance on what to do. The workflow is buried in excessive surrounding content making it hard to follow.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. Everything is inlined—detailed YAML plans, multiple code examples, metrics frameworks, risk assessment, CI/CD goals—all in one massive document. Content like the metrics framework, risk assessment, and planning patterns should be split into separate reference files.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 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: ccb062f

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.