CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ai-development-guide

Applies language-agnostic and backend technical decision criteria, anti-pattern detection, debugging, and quality gates. Use when reviewing general/backend implementation choices, code smells, failures, or implementation completeness.

60

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/ai-development-guide/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 is a well-structured but dense instruction-only guide whose main weakness is token efficiency and actionability: it restates well-known principles and leans on abstract guidance plus pseudocode rather than concrete, executable steps. Workflow sequencing is reasonably strong, but the monolithic structure would benefit from progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove or compress explanations of concepts Claude already knows (DRY, SRP, YAGNI, 5 Whys, Red-Green-Refactor); keep only the skill-specific criteria those concepts support.

Split the large catalogs (Technical Anti-patterns, Common Failure Patterns, Quality Check Workflow) into one-level-deep reference files in ./references/ and link to them from a concise overview in SKILL.md.

Tighten abstract directives into concrete, checkable guidance — e.g. replace 'Inspect until the evidence identifies the lowest-total-complexity solution' with a concrete inspection checklist (commands to run, evidence to collect, decision criteria to apply).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient but restates concepts Claude already knows (e.g. 'Violates Single Responsibility Principle', 'Violates DRY principle', 'YAGNI', '5 Whys', 'Red-Green-Refactor') and could be tightened throughout its ~250 lines of abstract criteria.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides checklists and criteria but they are largely abstract ('Inspect until the evidence identifies the lowest-total-complexity solution'); the few code blocks are pseudocode templates rather than executable guidance, leaving key details unspecified.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences multi-step processes clearly (3-stage Impact Analysis, 'Before Implementing Any Fallback' steps, Quality Check Workflow with 'Completion requires every applicable configured check to pass'), with most checkpoints present and only minor validation gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly headed sections, but at ~250 lines it is a single monolithic file with no bundle references; content that could live in separate files (anti-pattern catalog, failure patterns, quality workflow) is all inlined.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 description is strong: it clearly states capabilities and provides an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms. It is mostly distinct from other skills, with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('decision criteria, anti-pattern detection, debugging, and quality gates') tied to the backend domain, though the verbs are conceptual rather than file-level concrete, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does ('Applies ... criteria, anti-pattern detection, debugging, and quality gates') and when to use it ('Use when reviewing general/backend implementation choices, code smells, failures, or implementation completeness') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases like 'code smells', 'failures', 'implementation choices', and 'implementation completeness'; good coverage though a few common synonyms (e.g. 'code review', 'refactoring') are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a fairly distinct niche (backend/general implementation review and anti-pattern detection); minor overlap risk with broader code-review or refactoring skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
shinpr/claude-code-workflows
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.