agent-repo-architect
Agent skill for repo-architect - invoke with $agent-repo-architect
39
7%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
4.94xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-repo-architect/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 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
Add concrete actions describing what repo-architect does (e.g., 'Analyzes repository structure, generates architecture diagrams, suggests directory organization, reviews project layout').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms (e.g., 'Use when the user asks about repository structure, project architecture, directory organization, or codebase layout').
Replace the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-repo-architect') with functional description content — invocation syntax belongs in the skill body, not the description field.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for repo-architect' 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 potentially relevant term is 'repo-architect', which is a tool name rather than a natural keyword a user would say. There are no natural language trigger terms like 'repository structure', 'project layout', 'architecture', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so vague that it's impossible to distinguish it from any other agent skill. Without knowing what 'repo-architect' does, there's no way to differentiate it from other repository or architecture-related skills. | 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, monolithic document that mixes generic architecture advice with user-specific hardcoded examples. It lacks validation checkpoints for its batch/destructive operations, contains non-executable pseudocode, and fails to organize its extensive content into digestible layers. The best practices and monitoring sections are entirely generic platitudes that waste token budget.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation and error-handling steps after every destructive operation (repo creation, file pushing, cross-repo sync) — currently batch operations have zero verification checkpoints.
Remove the generic 'Best Practices', 'Monitoring and Analysis', and 'Integration with Development Workflow' sections entirely — they contain no actionable or novel information and waste significant token budget.
Replace placeholder content (e.g., '[Integration issue template]', '[Architecture documentation]') with actual executable examples or remove them — pseudocode placeholders reduce actionability.
Split the monolithic content into separate referenced files: move architecture patterns to PATTERNS.md, batch operations to BATCH-OPS.md, and template creation to TEMPLATES.md, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with navigation links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~250+ lines with significant redundancy. Explains high-level concepts Claude already knows (what monorepo structure is, what 'separation of concerns' means). The 'Best Practices' and 'Monitoring and Analysis' sections are generic platitudes that add no actionable value. Much of the content is padded boilerplate. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Contains code examples with specific tool calls and file structures, but the code is pseudocode-like JavaScript that isn't directly executable (e.g., `repositories.forEach` calling MCP tools, placeholder content like '[Integration issue template]'). Many examples use hardcoded paths specific to one user ('ruvnet') making them non-generalizable templates rather than actionable instructions. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Despite involving destructive/batch operations (pushing files across multiple repos, creating repositories, cross-repo synchronization), there are no validation checkpoints, error handling, or feedback loops. The 'Complete Repository Architecture Optimization' batch operation marks todos as 'completed' before they're actually done. No verification steps after pushing files or creating repos. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files despite the content being long enough to warrant splitting. Architecture patterns, batch operations, and template examples could each be separate referenced documents. No bundle files are provided, and the skill doesn't organize its extensive content into navigable layers. | 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
619b263
- 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.