agent-worker-specialist
Agent skill for worker-specialist - invoke with $agent-worker-specialist
44
13%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
10.88xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.agents/skills/agent-worker-specialist/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 provides no information about what the skill does, when to use it, or what domain it covers. It reads as a placeholder or auto-generated stub rather than a functional skill description.
Suggestions
Replace the entire description with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Delegates tasks to specialized worker agents for parallel processing of X, Y, Z.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause that specifies the scenarios and trigger terms under which Claude should select this skill.
Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-worker-specialist') from the description and replace it with domain-specific keywords users would naturally use.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for worker-specialist' is entirely abstract with no indication of 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 how to invoke it, not what it does or when it should be selected. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say. 'worker-specialist' is internal jargon, and 'invoke with $agent-worker-specialist' is a technical invocation instruction, not a trigger term. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so generic that it provides no distinguishing information. 'Worker-specialist' could refer to virtually any domain, making it impossible to differentiate from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is excessively verbose, repeating the same MCP memory_usage call pattern six times with minor variations when a single template plus a concise table would suffice. The code examples use inconsistent pseudo-JavaScript that isn't truly executable, and the workflow lacks validation checkpoints and error recovery loops. The generic advice sections ('Quality Standards', 'Integration Points') add little that Claude couldn't infer and consume significant token budget.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repetitive mcp__claude-flow__memory_usage examples into a single template with a table showing the different key patterns, namespaces, and payload fields for each worker type.
Fix the code syntax to be either valid MCP tool call format or clearly labeled as pseudocode templates — the current mix of JavaScript await/const with raw tool invocations is confusing.
Add explicit validation and error recovery steps: what to do when a task fails, how to verify deliverables before marking complete, and how to handle blocked state resolution.
Remove or drastically condense the 'Quality Standards', 'Integration Points', and 'Performance Metrics' sections — these are generic guidelines that don't provide actionable, skill-specific instruction.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with repetitive JSON blocks that all follow the same pattern (memory_usage store calls). The skill could be condensed to a single template with a table of key patterns. Much of the content is boilerplate that Claude could infer from one example. The 'Work Patterns', 'Quality Standards', and 'Integration Points' sections are generic and add little actionable value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code blocks show concrete MCP tool calls with specific key structures and JSON payloads, which is useful. However, the JavaScript syntax is inconsistent (mixing await with non-function MCP calls, using const with tool invocations), making the examples not truly executable. The placeholders like '[ID]' and '[feature]' are reasonable but the surrounding code is pseudocode dressed as real code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Work Patterns' section lists sequential steps but lacks validation checkpoints. There's no explicit error recovery or feedback loop — the dependency management section shows checking dependencies but doesn't describe what to do while blocked or how to retry. The emergency response pattern is vague ('execute with minimal overhead'). Missing validation after task completion. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All specialized worker types, patterns, and metrics are inlined when they could be split into separate reference files. The document is over 150 lines with no navigation aids or clear hierarchy for discovery. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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
844f68d
- 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.