agent-pseudocode

Agent skill for pseudocode - invoke with $agent-pseudocode

1.61x

Quality

13%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

84%

1.61x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-pseudocode/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 underdeveloped. It fails to explain what the skill does, when it should be used, or provide any natural trigger terms beyond the single word 'pseudocode'. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably select this skill from a pool of available skills.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates pseudocode from natural language descriptions, converts code to pseudocode, and refines algorithm logic in pseudocode format.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for pseudocode, algorithm outlines, logic flow descriptions, or wants to convert code into language-agnostic pseudocode.'

Remove the invocation syntax '$agent-pseudocode' from the description as it wastes space and is not useful for skill selection; replace with capability and trigger information.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description provides no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for pseudocode' is extremely vague and does not describe what the skill actually does (e.g., generate, convert, analyze pseudocode).	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 capabilities beyond the word 'pseudocode'.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only keyword is 'pseudocode', which is relevant but insufficient. The invocation syntax '$agent-pseudocode' is not a natural user term. There are no variations or related terms (e.g., 'algorithm design', 'code outline', 'logic flow').	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it could overlap with any coding, algorithm, or documentation skill. There are no distinct triggers to differentiate it from other code-related 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 heavily padded with generic pseudocode examples and CS concepts (design patterns, complexity analysis, data structures) that Claude already knows well. The content would benefit enormously from being reduced to just the unique conventions and workflow expectations, with examples moved to separate reference files. The lack of validation steps and the monolithic structure further weaken its effectiveness.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically reduce the generic pseudocode examples (authentication, search, design patterns) since Claude already knows these concepts—keep only the specific formatting conventions and standards unique to this project.

Add explicit validation/review checkpoints in the workflow, such as verifying pseudocode covers all spec requirements, checking edge cases are addressed, and confirming complexity analysis before marking the phase complete.

Split the lengthy examples into a separate EXAMPLES.md file and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clear references.

Replace the generic 'Best Practices' list with specific, actionable rules tied to the SPARC methodology that Claude wouldn't already know.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is extremely verbose at ~200+ lines, mostly consisting of generic pseudocode examples (authentication, rate limiting, search) that Claude already knows how to write. The design patterns section (Strategy, Observer) explains fundamental CS concepts Claude is well-versed in. Very little content is unique or non-obvious.	1 / 3
Actionability	The examples are concrete and well-structured pseudocode, but they are illustrative templates rather than executable guidance. The skill tells Claude to write pseudocode in a certain style but doesn't provide actionable instructions for how to handle real user requests—it's more of a reference document of examples than a task-oriented guide.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The SPARC Pseudocode phase steps are listed (1-5) but lack validation checkpoints or feedback loops. There's no guidance on when to iterate, how to verify pseudocode quality, or what to do if specifications are incomplete. The deliverables section lists outputs but doesn't sequence the work with verification steps.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The entire skill is a monolithic wall of text with all examples inline. The lengthy pseudocode examples for authentication, rate limiting, search, design patterns, and complexity analysis could easily be split into referenced files. No external references or navigation structure exists.	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: 0f7c750

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.