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 fails on every dimension. It functions as a label rather than a description—it names the skill and provides an invocation command but says nothing about what the skill does, what capabilities it offers, or when it should be selected. It is essentially unusable for skill selection among multiple options.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what sparc-coordinator actually does (e.g., 'Orchestrates multi-step tasks by breaking them into subtasks, delegating to specialized agents, and synthesizing results').
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 coordinate complex workflows, manage multi-agent tasks, or orchestrate parallel workstreams').
Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-sparc-coordinator') from the description—this is operational metadata, not selection criteria, and wastes space that should be used for capability and trigger information.
| 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 | 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 trigger information. | 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 | The description is so generic ('Agent skill for...') that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. Without knowing what it does, it could conflict with any coordination or orchestration skill. | 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 methodology overview document rather than an actionable skill for Claude. It is extremely verbose, explaining obvious software development concepts at length while providing zero concrete commands, code, or executable steps. The content would benefit enormously from being condensed to essential, actionable instructions with specific tool invocations and validation commands.
Suggestions
Replace abstract phase descriptions with concrete, executable commands or tool invocations (e.g., specific memory_store/memory_search commands for each phase transition, actual agent spawn commands).
Cut at least 60% of the content by removing obvious concepts Claude already knows (what requirements gathering is, what TDD is, etc.) and focus only on the specific coordination protocol.
Add concrete validation/quality gate checks with specific commands or criteria that can be programmatically verified, rather than abstract statements like 'All requirements documented'.
Split detailed integration patterns, best practices, and metrics into separate reference files and link to them from a concise overview in the main SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive explanation of concepts Claude already knows (what SPARC phases are, what quality gates mean, basic software development concepts). The content is heavily padded with abstract descriptions, lists of obvious items ('Edge case identification', 'Complexity analysis'), and sections like 'Success Metrics' that add no actionable value. Most of this could be cut by 70%+. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Almost entirely abstract and descriptive with no concrete, executable guidance. The 'Usage Examples' are just natural language prompts, not actual commands or code. There are no specific commands to run, no concrete tool invocations, no executable workflows—just vague descriptions like 'Detailed requirements gathering' and 'Algorithm design'. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The phase transition diagram and quality gates provide a clear sequence, which is good. However, there are no concrete validation steps, no actual commands for checking quality gates, and no feedback loops with specific error recovery procedures. The workflow is conceptual rather than operational. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All content is inline regardless of depth or relevance. Sections like 'Memory Integration', 'Success Metrics', and detailed 'Integration Patterns' could easily be split into separate reference files but are instead dumped into one long document. | 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.