CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-v3-queen-coordinator

Agent skill for v3-queen-coordinator - invoke with $agent-v3-queen-coordinator

58

6.25x
Quality

35%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

6.25x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/agent-v3-queen-coordinator/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body reads as a project status overview rather than an operational skill: it maps agents and timelines well but never tells the coordinator how to actually orchestrate, dispatch, verify, or report. There are no executable commands outside the hook block, no validation checkpoints despite governing batch agent operations, and detail (hooks config, ADR scope) is inlined instead of split into references. Structure and brevity are decent; actionability is the main weakness.

Suggestions

Replace the descriptive phase tables with executable coordination procedures: the actual commands to spawn/delegate to agents, check their status, and report results.

Add validation checkpoints and feedback loops for the batch operations the skill governs (e.g., verify each agent's output before merging, re-dispatch on failure) to lift workflow_clarity past the batch-operation cap.

Move the hooks YAML block and per-agent/ADR detail into reference files (e.g., references/agents.md, references/adrs.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and is structured as compact lists, but the duplicated YAML frontmatter block (lines 6-45) re-declares name/version/metadata and embeds decorative hook echoes ('👑 V3 Queen Coordinator starting...', '🎯 Mission:...') that are cosmetic rather than functional. Mostly efficient with some unnecessary padding, matching anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances'.

3 / 5

Actionability

The content describes what the swarm is (topology diagram, phase/week assignments, target metrics like '2.49x-7.47x performance') but gives the coordinator no executable guidance: no dispatch commands, no agent-spawn instructions, no coordination procedures, no issue-management workflows. This matches anchor 2 — high-level hints about who works on what, missing the specific steps to execute — and is well below anchor 3-4's concrete code or commands.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four phases provide a real, ordered sequence (Foundation → Core Systems → Integration → Release with agent assignments), which reaches anchor 3's 'steps listed'. But there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops anywhere, and the skill explicitly governs batch/parallel operations (15 concurrent agents, releases) — per the rubric's cap, missing validation in batch contexts holds workflow_clarity at 3 and it cannot score 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized (Mission, Topology, Phases, Metrics) and no references exist, but the body is ~100 lines with substantial content (the full hooks configuration, 10 ADRs' worth of scope, per-agent responsibilities) that clearly belongs in separate reference files inlined into SKILL.md. This matches anchor 3: some structure, but content that should be separate is inline; it is not the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

28%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The frontmatter description is pure boilerplate: a name reference plus an invocation hint, with no statement of what the skill does or when to use it. The detailed capabilities that exist in the body's second YAML block (swarm orchestration, GitHub issue management, ADR implementation) were never lifted into the description. It fails both the 'what' and 'when' tests almost entirely.

Suggestions

State the skill's actual capabilities in the description, e.g. 'Orchestrates a 15-agent concurrent swarm, manages GitHub issues, and coordinates cross-agent work for Claude-Flow v3 ADR implementation.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when the user asks to coordinate the v3 agent swarm, orchestrate parallel agents, or drive ADR-001 through ADR-010 delivery.'

Include natural synonyms and concrete nouns users would say (swarm orchestration, agent coordination, hierarchical mesh) rather than only the literal skill name and '$agent-v3-queen-coordinator' invocation string.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description only states 'Agent skill for v3-queen-coordinator - invoke with $agent-v3-queen-coordinator' — it names a domain but states no actions whatsoever, not even generic ones like 'Processes PDF files' in the anchor 2 example. It sits between the 'entirely vague' anchor 1 and the 'names domain, minimal actions' anchor 2; the specific name keeps it just above 1.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is limited to the boilerplate 'Agent skill for...' (tellingly, the second YAML block's richer description never surfaces in the actual frontmatter) and there is no 'when' or 'Use when...' clause at all. This matches anchor 2 ('vague what and no when') and is below anchor 3, which requires a clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are the literal skill name and the invocation string '$agent-v3-queen-coordinator'; there are no natural task phrases a user would say when needing this skill (e.g., 'swarm orchestration', 'coordinate agents', 'GitHub issue triage'). This matches anchor 2: one or two generic keywords with the natural phrases users would actually say missing.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique name 'v3-queen-coordinator' is distinct, so overlap with other skills is limited, but matching relies entirely on the name since no capability-based triggers are described — a user describing the task in plain words would not trigger it. This falls between anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap') and anchor 4; it is not 'mostly distinct' on capability grounds, so 3 is the best fit.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
ruvnet/ruflo
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.