agent-production-validator
Agent skill for production-validator - invoke with $agent-production-validator
40
7%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.22xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-production-validator/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 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.
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, as this is operational detail that doesn't help Claude decide when to select this skill.
| 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, not 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 conflict with any validation or production-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 an overly verbose collection of generic test patterns that Claude already knows how to write. It lacks a clear sequential workflow for performing production validation, has no feedback loops or error recovery steps, and dumps hundreds of lines of illustrative (not executable) code into a single monolithic file. The content would benefit enormously from being condensed to a concise checklist with specific, project-aware validation steps.
Suggestions
Reduce content to a concise validation checklist (under 50 lines) with the bash scanning commands and a clear sequential workflow, moving detailed test examples to separate reference files if needed.
Add a clear step-by-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops (e.g., 'If mocks found → list files → fix → re-scan → only proceed when clean').
Remove generic test boilerplate (CRUD tests, load tests, security tests) that Claude can generate on its own; focus on the unique validation logic and decision criteria specific to this skill.
Fix syntax errors in code examples (regex patterns use $ instead of / delimiters, URL paths corrupted) to make examples actually executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. Most code examples are generic test patterns Claude already knows (CRUD tests, health checks, load testing). The skill explains obvious concepts like what mock implementations are and provides boilerplate test code that doesn't add unique value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Contains concrete TypeScript code examples and bash commands, but they are illustrative templates rather than executable, project-specific guidance. The code has syntax errors (regex patterns use $ instead of / delimiters) and references undefined variables (validToken, app). It describes what to test rather than providing a reusable validation tool. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no clear sequential workflow for performing production validation. The content is organized as a collection of test examples and checklists without a defined order, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops for when issues are found. The pre/post hooks in frontmatter hint at a workflow but the body doesn't connect them into a coherent process. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with all content inline. Massive code blocks for database testing, API testing, infrastructure testing, performance testing, and security testing are all dumped into a single file with no references to external files. This would be a prime candidate for splitting into separate focused documents. | 1 / 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
398f7c2
- 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.