agent-coder

Agent skill for coder - invoke with $agent-coder

1.12x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

79%

1.12x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-coder/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 critically deficient across 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 more like an internal label than a functional description for skill selection.

Suggestions

Replace the entire description with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Writes, debugs, and refactors code across multiple languages. Generates unit tests and implements features from specifications.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to write code, fix bugs, refactor functions, or implement features.'

Remove the invocation syntax ('invoke with $agent-coder') from the description, as it is internal tooling information and does not help Claude decide when to select this skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for coder' 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. There is no explanation of capabilities and no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only keyword is 'coder', which is extremely generic. There are no natural terms a user would say when needing a specific coding task. The invocation syntax '$agent-coder' is internal jargon, not a user trigger term.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Coder' is one of the broadest possible terms and would conflict with virtually any coding-related skill. There is nothing to distinguish this from other programming or development 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 a verbose collection of generic software engineering best practices that Claude already knows, padded with basic concepts like SOLID principles, DRY, and 'never hardcode secrets.' The MCP tool integration section adds some project-specific value, but it's buried in a monolithic document. The skill would benefit enormously from being reduced to only the project-specific conventions, MCP coordination patterns, and unique workflow requirements.

Suggestions

Remove all generic software engineering advice (SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, security basics, testing best practices) that Claude already knows - focus only on project-specific conventions and MCP tool usage patterns.

Split into a concise SKILL.md overview with references to separate files for MCP integration patterns, code style specifics, and collaboration protocols.

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the implementation workflow, such as 'run tests after each step' and 'verify MCP memory store succeeded before proceeding.'

Make MCP tool examples executable with proper syntax rather than pseudo-JSON objects, and clarify when each tool should be invoked in the workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose - explains basic concepts Claude already knows (SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, single responsibility, dependency injection, error handling patterns, file organization conventions, security basics like 'never hardcode secrets'). Most of this is generic software engineering knowledge that wastes tokens.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains some concrete TypeScript code examples and MCP tool invocations, but much of the content is generic guidance ('Review specifications thoroughly', 'Plan the architecture') rather than specific executable instructions. The MCP tool examples show specific syntax but use pseudo-JSON rather than actual executable calls.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The implementation process has a numbered sequence (Understand → Design → TDD → Incremental), but lacks validation checkpoints and feedback loops. There's no explicit verification step after implementation, and the pre/post hooks provide only basic validation (lint). No error recovery guidance for when implementations fail.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including detailed code style guidelines, file organization, best practices, documentation patterns, and MCP integration that could easily be split into separate reference files. No navigation structure or cross-references.	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.