agent-sparc-coordinator

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

1.24x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.24x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-sparc-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 is an extremely weak description that provides virtually no useful information for skill selection. It merely states the skill's name and invocation command without describing any capabilities, use cases, or trigger conditions. It is essentially a placeholder rather than a functional description.

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 specification, pseudocode, architecture, refinement, and completion phases').

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 sub-tasks, or requests structured problem decomposition').

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-sparc-coordinator') from the description, as this is operational metadata rather than descriptive content useful 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	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description is essentially a self-referential label with an invocation command, providing no functional or contextual 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	While the name 'sparc-coordinator' is unique, the description is so vague that Claude cannot determine when to select it. The lack of any functional description means it could either never be triggered or be triggered incorrectly.	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 well-known software development concepts without providing any concrete commands, code, or executable steps. The content would benefit enormously from being condensed to essential coordination logic with concrete tool invocations and splitting detailed reference material into separate files.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phase descriptions with concrete, executable steps: specific commands to run, tool invocations to make, or code to execute at each phase transition and quality gate.

Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows (what TDD is, what quality gates are, what SPARC stands for) and focus only on project-specific implementation details.

Add concrete quality gate validation criteria with explicit pass/fail conditions and feedback loops (e.g., 'If specification review fails: identify gaps → update requirements → re-validate').

Extract detailed sections (Integration Patterns, Memory Integration, Success Metrics) 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 descriptive rather than instructive, and many sections (Success Metrics, Best Practices, Common Patterns) add little actionable value. The skill could be reduced to a fraction of its size.	1 / 3
Actionability	Almost entirely abstract descriptions with no concrete code, commands, or executable examples. 'Usage Examples' are just natural language prompts, not actual implementation guidance. There are no specific commands to run, no tool invocations, no concrete steps Claude can execute. The phase transition diagram is ASCII art, not actionable workflow logic.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The phases are listed in sequence and quality gates are named, providing a basic workflow structure. However, the quality gates lack concrete validation criteria (e.g., what specifically must be checked), there are no feedback loops for failed gates, and the actual steps within each phase are vague bullet points rather than clear procedures.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All sections are inline despite many (Memory Integration, Integration Patterns, Success Metrics) being candidates for separate reference documents. There is no navigation structure or clear hierarchy for discovery.	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: 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.