agent-swarm-issue

Agent skill for swarm-issue - invoke with $agent-swarm-issue

2.93x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

2.93x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-swarm-issue/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 fails on every dimension. It provides no information about what the skill does, when it should be used, or what user requests should trigger it. It reads more like an internal label than a functional description.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does (e.g., 'Creates, triages, and manages swarm issues' or whatever the actual functionality is).

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that users would actually say when they need this skill.

Replace the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-swarm-issue') with meaningful capability and context information — invocation syntax is not useful for skill selection.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for swarm-issue' 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 keyword is 'swarm-issue', which is technical jargon unlikely to be naturally used by a user. There are no natural language trigger terms that a user would say.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. 'Agent skill for swarm-issue' could mean almost anything and offers no clear niche or distinct triggers.	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 is extremely bloated and largely non-actionable, referencing a fictional 'npx ruv-swarm' CLI extensively with dozens of subcommands that cannot be verified as real. The document tries to cover every conceivable issue management scenario but provides no focused, executable guidance. It would benefit enormously from being reduced to ~50 lines covering actual working tools (gh CLI + the listed MCP tools) with specific, verified workflows.

Suggestions

Remove all references to 'npx ruv-swarm' unless it's a real, documented tool - replace with actual executable commands using the listed MCP tools and gh CLI

Reduce the document to 50-80 lines covering 2-3 core workflows (e.g., issue analysis, task decomposition, progress tracking) with verified, executable commands

Move specialized content (GitHub Actions configs, issue templates, label automation rules) into separate referenced files

Add explicit validation steps to workflows - e.g., verify issue exists before processing, check swarm initialization succeeded before spawning agents

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at 400+ lines with massive amounts of speculative/aspirational content. Most commands reference a fictional 'npx ruv-swarm' CLI tool with dozens of subcommands that likely don't exist. Enormous redundancy across sections (issue-init appears multiple times with slight variations). Explains concepts Claude already knows and includes sections like 'Best Practices' with generic advice.	1 / 3
Actionability	Nearly all commands reference 'npx ruv-swarm github' which appears to be a non-existent or undocumented tool - none of these commands are verifiably executable. The MCP tool invocations at the bottom use incorrect syntax (JSON-like objects without proper function call format). The gh CLI portions are real but mixed with fictional tooling, making it unclear what actually works.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Some sections like 'Task Decomposition' and 'Progress Tracking' show sequential steps with bash commands, and the auto-close stale issues section has a reasonable workflow with conditional logic. However, there are no validation checkpoints or error recovery steps, and the sheer volume of disconnected workflows makes it hard to follow any single process end-to-end.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of content with no meaningful separation into referenced files. Everything is inline in one massive document covering issue conversion, templates, automation, metrics, security, examples, and more. The 'See also' links at the bottom are the only references. Content that should be in separate files (GitHub Actions workflows, label configs, issue templates) is all inline.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (578 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

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.