agent-sparc-coordinator
Agent skill for sparc-coordinator - invoke with $agent-sparc-coordinator
39
6%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.24xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-sparc-coordinator/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 essentially only provides an invocation command and a self-referential name. It completely fails to communicate what the skill does, what actions it performs, or when it should be selected. Claude would have no basis for choosing this skill from a list of available skills.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what sparc-coordinator actually does (e.g., 'Coordinates multi-step task decomposition using the SPARC framework, breaking complex problems into subtasks and orchestrating their execution').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe scenarios where this skill should be selected (e.g., 'Use when the user needs to break down a complex project, coordinate multiple agents, or manage task orchestration').
Replace the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-sparc-coordinator') with functional description—invocation details belong in the skill body, not the description field used for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for sparc-coordinator' is entirely vague—it doesn't describe what the skill does, only names itself. There are no verbs describing capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. It only provides an invocation command ('invoke with $agent-sparc-coordinator') but no functional description or trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only potentially relevant term is 'sparc-coordinator', which is technical jargon unlikely to be used naturally by users. There are no natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While the name 'sparc-coordinator' is unique, the description is so vague that Claude cannot determine when to use it versus any other skill. Without knowing what it does, it could conflict with anything or nothing. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
12%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads as a high-level conceptual overview of the SPARC methodology rather than an actionable skill for Claude. It is extremely verbose, explaining well-known software development concepts without providing any concrete commands, executable code, or specific tool usage. The content describes what should happen at each phase but never instructs how to actually do it.
Suggestions
Replace abstract descriptions with concrete, executable instructions - e.g., specify exact commands to invoke each SPARC agent, specific file paths to check, and actual validation scripts to run at quality gates.
Cut at least 60% of the content by removing explanations of concepts Claude already knows (TDD, quality gates, microservices, etc.) and focus only on the specific coordination logic unique to this skill.
Add concrete examples with actual input/output - instead of 'Use SPARC methodology to develop a user authentication system', show the exact sequence of agent invocations, memory commands, and quality gate checks.
Split detailed sections (Integration Patterns, Memory Integration, Best Practices) into separate reference files and link to them from a concise overview in the main skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanation of concepts Claude already knows (what SPARC phases are, what quality gates mean, what TDD is). Most content is abstract description rather than actionable instruction. The skill is ~150 lines of high-level descriptions that could be condensed to ~30 lines of concrete guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Almost entirely abstract and descriptive with no executable code, no concrete commands, no specific tool invocations, and no copy-paste ready examples. The 'Usage Examples' section contains only natural language prompts, not actual implementation steps. There's no guidance on how to actually invoke agents, run quality gates, or execute any of the described workflows. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The phase transition diagram and quality gates provide a clear sequence, but validation checkpoints are only described abstractly ('All requirements documented', 'Tests pass, coverage adequate') with no concrete validation commands or feedback loops for error recovery. The workflow lacks specific instructions for what to do when a quality gate fails. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline despite many sections (Memory Integration, Integration Patterns, Best Practices) that could be split into separate reference documents. No navigation structure or links to deeper documentation. | 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.