agent-queen-coordinator

Agent skill for queen-coordinator - invoke with $agent-queen-coordinator

2.93x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

2.93x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-queen-coordinator/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 essentially a label with an invocation command and provides zero useful information about the skill's purpose, capabilities, or appropriate usage context. It fails on every dimension of the rubric, offering no concrete actions, no trigger terms, no 'when to use' guidance, and no distinguishing features.

Suggestions

Add a clear statement of what the skill does with specific concrete actions (e.g., 'Coordinates parallel sub-agents to divide and execute complex multi-step tasks').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms describing scenarios where this skill should be selected (e.g., 'Use when the user requests a complex task that benefits from parallel execution or multi-agent coordination').

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-queen-coordinator') from the description and replace it with capability and context information that helps Claude distinguish this skill from others.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for queen-coordinator' is entirely abstract with 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	No natural keywords a user would say are present. 'queen-coordinator' is internal jargon, and 'invoke with $agent-queen-coordinator' is a technical invocation instruction, not a trigger term.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. Without knowing what the skill does, it could conflict with anything or nothing—Claude has no basis for selection.	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 heavily themed around a 'queen bee' metaphor that adds significant verbosity without proportional value. While it provides some concrete MCP tool call examples for storing coordination data, it lacks real workflow logic, validation steps, retrieval patterns, and decision-making procedures. Many sections are aspirational bullet lists (emergency protocols, governance modes) with no actionable implementation.

Suggestions

Remove the roleplay/metaphorical framing (sovereign, royal decrees, coup prevention, morale) and replace with direct, functional language describing coordination responsibilities.

Add concrete retrieval and decision-making workflows: how to read agent status, evaluate conditions, and take action based on results, with explicit validation checkpoints.

Replace vague bullet lists (e.g., 'Byzantine fault tolerance', 'Consensus building') with either concrete implementations or remove them entirely.

Structure content with a quick-start section showing the minimal coordination loop, then separate detailed governance modes and emergency protocols into referenced files or clearly delineated advanced sections.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with extensive roleplay framing ('sovereign intelligence', 'royal decrees', 'coup prevention'). Much of the content is thematic fluff that adds no actionable value. The metaphorical language (morale, rebellious agents, hive loyalty) wastes tokens on concepts Claude doesn't need explained. The skill could be reduced to ~30% of its size without losing functional content.	1 / 3
Actionability	The code blocks show concrete MCP tool calls with specific JSON structures, which is somewhat actionable. However, many sections are vague bullet-point lists without concrete guidance (e.g., 'Byzantine fault tolerance', 'Coup prevention mechanisms', 'Consensus building' with no implementation details). The code examples are store-only operations with no retrieval or decision logic.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints. The 'Command Protocols' section lists abstract sequences (Issue directive → Monitor compliance → Evaluate results) without concrete steps. There's no error handling, no feedback loops, and no validation of whether stored data was successfully written or whether agents actually responded to directives.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no clear hierarchy of information. Everything is inline regardless of importance. Quick-start essentials are mixed with emergency protocols and governance modes, making it hard to navigate. No bundle files exist to support progressive disclosure.	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: 844f68d

Reviewed: about 3 hours 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.