implementation-approach

Implementation strategy selection framework. Use when planning implementation strategy, selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria.

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/implementation-approach/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

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

The body presents a well-sequenced six-phase framework with clear validation checkpoints, giving it strong workflow clarity. It is held back by verbosity from restating known design patterns and by a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the catalog of well-known patterns (Strangler, Facade, Adapter, Proxy, Decorator, Bridge) and the generic YAML risk/constraint matrices, keeping only the decision guidance that is not already common knowledge.

Move the pattern catalog and detailed risk/constraint matrices into a reference file (e.g. references/patterns.md) and link to it one level deep so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

Add a concrete worked example showing the framework applied to a real before/after decision, so the guidance becomes immediately actionable rather than abstract.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is well structured but enumerates well-known patterns (Strangler, Facade, Adapter, Proxy, Decorator, Bridge) and generic planning scaffolding that Claude already knows, plus YAML matrices that could be trimmed. It avoids the score-1 explanatory padding but does not earn score-3 leanness where every token earns its place.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides a structured process and some concrete decision rules ("Three or more dependent features is a mandatory signal"), but overall guidance is an abstract framework rather than concrete executable steps. As an instruction-only skill it clears score 1 yet falls short of the fully actionable, copy-paste-ready bar of score 3.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced six-phase process (Phase 1 through Phase 6) is paired with a "Quality Checks" checklist that acts as explicit validation checkpoints and L1/L2/L3 verification-level definitions. This matches the score-3 anchor of a clear sequence with checklists for a complex process.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized, but the skill is a monolithic ~140-line inline document with no external references or bundle files to split detail into. Above the score-1 nested-reference mess, but below score 3 because content that could be separate (pattern catalog, risk matrix) is inline.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with an explicit "Use when" trigger. It is moderately specific and distinct but uses somewhat generic phrasing that limits trigger-term quality and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add concrete capability verbs to raise specificity, e.g. "Implementation strategy selection framework: analyzes current implementation, compares migration patterns, and selects vertical/horizontal/hybrid delivery slices."

Broaden trigger terms with natural user phrasings such as "deciding how to implement a feature", "choosing between vertical and horizontal slices", or "planning a migration approach".

Sharpen distinctiveness by naming the decision artifact, e.g. "Use when selecting the implementation approach to record in a Design Doc."

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several actions ("planning implementation strategy", "selecting development approach", "defining verification criteria") but does not list a comprehensive set of concrete capabilities. It sits above the score-1 vague anchor yet below the score-3 multi-specific-action example.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly states what ("Implementation strategy selection framework") and when via a "Use when planning implementation strategy, selecting development approach, or defining verification criteria" clause. This matches the score-3 anchor answering both what and when with explicit triggers.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant trigger phrases but they lean technical and generic ("selecting development approach", "defining verification criteria") without common user variations. Better than a single jargon phrase, but lacks the broad natural-term coverage of score 3.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The implementation-strategy niche is fairly specific, but triggers like "selecting development approach" could overlap with general planning or coding-planning skills. Not generic enough for score 1, yet not clearly conflict-free for score 3.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: shinpr/claude-code-workflows
Path: skills/implementation-approach/SKILL.md
Commit: 56ab6c1

Reviewed: 4 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.