CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sparc-methodology

SPARC (Specification, Pseudocode, Architecture, Refinement, Completion) comprehensive development methodology with multi-agent orchestration

43

1.38x
Quality

17%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

90%

1.38x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/sparc-methodology/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is sparc-methodology in ruvnet/agentic-flow

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

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 extremely verbose and monolithic, attempting to document an entire development methodology with 17 specialized modes in a single file. It explains many concepts Claude already knows (TDD, code review criteria, microservices patterns) and lacks validation checkpoints in its multi-step workflows. While it provides some concrete tool call syntax and CLI commands, the sheer volume of content undermines its utility as a skill file.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 70%+: Remove capability lists and concept explanations Claude already knows (TDD, code review criteria, design patterns). Focus only on the specific tool call syntax and mode-specific options.

Split into multiple files: Create separate reference files for mode details (MODES.md), orchestration patterns (PATTERNS.md), and integration examples (EXAMPLES.md), with SKILL.md serving as a concise overview with links.

Add validation checkpoints to workflows: For multi-agent orchestration steps, include explicit verification steps (e.g., 'Check swarm_monitor output before proceeding to next phase') and error recovery guidance.

Clarify the MCP tool call syntax: The JavaScript-like blocks aren't valid JS—either document them as pseudo-syntax explicitly or provide the actual calling convention with expected response formats.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at 600+ lines. Extensively explains concepts Claude already knows (what TDD is, what microservices are, what code review criteria are). Lists capabilities for 17 modes with redundant descriptions. The 'Core Philosophy' and 'Key Principles' sections are generic software engineering wisdom that adds no actionable value. Much of this could be reduced to a fraction of its size.

1 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete MCP tool call syntax and CLI commands which are useful, but the JavaScript code blocks are not standard executable code—they use a pseudo-call syntax (e.g., `mcp__claude-flow__sparc_mode { mode: "coder" }`) that isn't valid JS. The CLI examples are more actionable but lack expected output examples. Many sections describe capabilities rather than instruct.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step workflows are listed (e.g., TDD workflow, feature development pipeline) with clear sequencing, but there are no validation checkpoints or error recovery steps. For a methodology involving multi-agent orchestration and batch operations, the absence of any 'verify before proceeding' or 'if this fails, do X' guidance is a significant gap.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files despite the content clearly warranting decomposition. The 17 mode descriptions, orchestration patterns, integration examples, and advanced features could each be separate referenced documents. No bundle files exist to support this, and the single file tries to contain everything, making it overwhelming and poorly organized for consumption.

1 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Description

7%

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 description is essentially a label rather than a functional description. It names a methodology acronym and uses buzzwords like 'comprehensive' and 'multi-agent orchestration' without explaining what concrete actions the skill performs or when Claude should select it. It would be very difficult for Claude to reliably choose this skill from a list of alternatives.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Breaks down complex projects into specification, pseudocode, architecture, implementation, and review phases. Generates structured development plans and coordinates task decomposition.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to plan a software project, architect a system, break down a complex feature, or mentions SPARC methodology.'

Replace vague terms like 'comprehensive development methodology' and 'multi-agent orchestration' with specific, user-facing language describing what the skill actually does in practice.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a methodology acronym and expands it, but does not describe any concrete actions Claude would perform. 'Multi-agent orchestration' and 'comprehensive development methodology' are abstract and vague.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description weakly addresses 'what' (a development methodology) but provides no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. There is no 'Use when...' or equivalent, and the 'what' itself is too abstract to be useful.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The only potential trigger term is 'SPARC', which is niche jargon. Terms like 'multi-agent orchestration' and 'comprehensive development methodology' are not phrases users would naturally say. Common development-related terms users might use (e.g., 'build', 'architect', 'plan', 'design system') are absent.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The SPARC acronym provides some distinctiveness, but 'comprehensive development methodology' is extremely broad and could overlap with any coding, architecture, or project planning skill. The 'multi-agent orchestration' aspect adds slight uniqueness but is not well-defined.

2 / 3

Total

5

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1116 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
ruvnet/ruv-FANN
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.