agent-orchestrator-task
Agent skill for orchestrator-task - invoke with $agent-orchestrator-task
34
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
82%
1.32xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-orchestrator-task/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 every dimension. 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 or auto-generated stub rather than a functional skill description.
Suggestions
Replace the entire description with concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Coordinates multi-step workflows by breaking complex tasks into subtasks and delegating them to specialized agents').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe scenarios where this skill should be selected (e.g., 'Use when the user requests a complex task requiring multiple steps, parallel execution, or coordination across different tools').
Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-orchestrator-task') from the description and focus on capability and trigger information that helps Claude select the right skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for orchestrator-task' is entirely abstract and gives no indication of what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. There is no 'Use when...' clause and no description of functionality. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'orchestrator-task' is internal jargon, and 'invoke with $agent-orchestrator-task' is a technical invocation instruction, not a trigger term. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so generic that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. 'Orchestrator-task' could mean virtually anything, making it impossible to differentiate from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%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 conceptual overview or architecture document rather than an actionable skill. It describes what a task orchestrator does in abstract terms but never tells Claude how to actually perform orchestration—no concrete commands, no tool invocations, no executable examples, and no validation steps. The vast majority of the content explains concepts Claude already understands (parallelization, dependency management, task decomposition).
Suggestions
Replace abstract descriptions with concrete, executable instructions—e.g., show exactly how to use TodoWrite for task tracking, how to invoke sub-agents, and how to store/retrieve results from memory.
Add a concrete workflow with validation checkpoints, such as: decompose task → write plan to TodoWrite → execute subtasks → validate each result → synthesize outputs, with specific commands at each step.
Remove sections that describe concepts Claude already knows (what task decomposition is, what parallelization means) and replace with specific patterns showing exact tool usage and expected outputs.
Add at least one complete worked example showing input objective → decomposed tasks → execution plan → result synthesis with actual commands and tool calls.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is extremely verbose and largely describes abstract concepts Claude already understands (task decomposition, dependency management, parallelization). Most sections are conceptual descriptions rather than actionable instructions, and the entire document could be reduced to a fraction of its size. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no executable code, no concrete commands, and no specific implementation details. It reads like a high-level architecture document with abstract descriptions ('Analyzes complex objectives', 'Identifies logical subtasks') rather than concrete instructions Claude can follow. The 'Task Patterns' are just labeled lists of phases, not actionable steps. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | While task patterns are listed, they lack any concrete validation steps, specific commands, or feedback loops. The patterns are abstract labels (e.g., 'Requirements Analysis (Sequential)') without explaining what to actually do, how to validate completion, or how to handle failures. No checkpoints or error recovery are defined. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is organized into logical sections with clear headers, which provides some structure. However, it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed content, and sections like 'Integration Points' and 'Advanced Features' could be split out. The organization exists but the content density doesn't warrant the length. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%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
0f7c750
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.