agent-production-validator

Agent skill for production-validator - invoke with $agent-production-validator

1.22x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.22x

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-production-validator/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 triggers should activate it. It reads as a placeholder rather than a functional description, making it essentially useless for skill selection among multiple options.

Suggestions

Describe the concrete actions this skill performs (e.g., 'Validates production deployments by checking service health, configuration correctness, and dependency availability').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to validate a production environment, check deployment readiness, or verify production configuration').

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-production-validator') from the description and replace it with functional details about what the skill does and the specific scenarios it handles.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for production-validator' 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 'production-validator', which is a technical/internal name rather than a natural term a user would say. There are no natural language trigger terms like 'validate', 'deploy', 'check production', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish it from other skills. 'Production-validator' hints at a domain but without any specifics, it could overlap with any validation, testing, or deployment-related skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Implementation

14%

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

This skill is excessively verbose, presenting extensive illustrative code examples that Claude already knows how to write, rather than providing concise, actionable instructions specific to the production validation task. It lacks a clear sequential workflow, has no feedback loops for failure cases, and dumps all content into a single monolithic file. The content reads more like a tutorial or documentation page than a focused agent skill.

Suggestions

Reduce the content to a concise checklist-based workflow (e.g., Step 1: Scan for mocks, Step 2: Validate env vars, Step 3: Run integration tests) with explicit pass/fail criteria and feedback loops for each step.

Remove the lengthy illustrative code examples and replace with brief, specific commands or patterns that Claude wouldn't already know — focus on project-specific conventions rather than generic testing patterns.

Add a clear sequential workflow with validation checkpoints and explicit instructions for what to do when a validation step fails (fix → re-validate loop).

Split detailed validation examples into separate reference files (e.g., SECURITY_CHECKS.md, PERFORMANCE_CHECKS.md) and keep the main skill as a concise overview with navigation links.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. Most code examples are illustrative/educational rather than actionable templates Claude doesn't already know. Explains obvious concepts like CRUD operations, Redis get/set, and basic authentication testing that Claude already understands. The entire skill could be reduced to a checklist and a few key patterns.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains concrete TypeScript code examples and bash commands, but they are more illustrative templates than executable, copy-paste-ready code. The code references undefined variables (e.g., `validToken`, `app`), uses placeholder environment variables, and the regex patterns in the first example have corrupted syntax (`$mock[A-Z]` instead of proper regex). The bash commands in the checklist section are the most directly actionable parts.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no clear sequential workflow or validation pipeline. The content presents categories of validation (implementation, database, API, infrastructure, performance, security, deployment) but doesn't sequence them into a coherent process with checkpoints. There's no feedback loop for what to do when validation fails, and no clear ordering of steps for the agent to follow.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with all content inline. No references to external files for detailed examples. The massive code blocks for each validation category should be split into separate reference files, with the main skill providing a concise overview and navigation. Everything is dumped into a single document with no layering.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 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: 3d8f171

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.