recipe-design

Execute from requirement analysis to design document creation

Quality

38%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/recipe-design/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

14%

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 too vague and incomplete to effectively guide skill selection. It lacks specific concrete actions, natural trigger terms, and any explicit 'Use when...' guidance. Among potentially many skills, this description would be difficult to distinguish from other documentation or planning-related skills.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for requirements analysis, design documents, technical specifications, PRDs, or system architecture documentation.'

List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Gathers and structures software requirements, creates functional specifications, produces technical design documents with architecture diagrams and API contracts.'

Include common user-facing keywords and file types, e.g., 'requirements doc', 'specs', 'PRD', 'system design', 'architecture', '.md', '.docx' to improve trigger term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language like 'requirement analysis' and 'design document creation' without specifying concrete actions. It doesn't list what specific tasks are performed (e.g., gathering stakeholders, writing specs, creating diagrams).	1 / 3
Completeness	The description weakly addresses 'what' (execute from requirement analysis to design document creation) but completely lacks any 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite weak, warranting a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant keywords like 'requirement analysis' and 'design document' that users might mention, but misses common variations such as 'specs', 'requirements gathering', 'technical design', 'architecture document', 'PRD', or 'software design'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is very generic and could overlap with many skills related to documentation, project planning, software architecture, or technical writing. There are no distinct triggers to differentiate it from other skills.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Implementation

62%

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

This is a well-structured orchestration skill with clear workflow sequencing and quality gates, but it falls short on actionability by not providing concrete invocation examples for the sub-agents it references. The references to external skills lack clear navigation paths, and some content is redundant between the workflow overview and scope boundaries sections.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete sub-agent invocation example (e.g., how to call requirement-analyzer with specific parameters) rather than deferring entirely to the external guide.

Provide explicit file paths or markdown links for all referenced skills (e.g., [subagents-orchestration-guide](./subagents-orchestration-guide/SKILL.md)) to improve navigation.

Consolidate the 'Scope Boundaries' section into the workflow overview or completion criteria to reduce redundancy.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy — the scope boundaries section largely restates the workflow overview, and phrases like 'I am not a worker. I am an orchestrator.' add flavor but not actionable value. Some tightening is possible.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides a clear sequence of sub-agent invocations and stopping points, but lacks concrete examples of how to invoke each sub-agent (no actual commands, prompts, or parameter formats). It references 'subagents-orchestration-guide skill Call Examples' without showing any, making it incomplete for copy-paste execution.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The workflow is clearly sequenced with an ASCII diagram, explicit stop/approval gates at scale determination and design approval, a feedback loop through document-reviewer, and a completion checklist. The critical note about not skipping quality gates adds appropriate guardrails.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill appropriately references external resources (subagents-orchestration-guide skill) and keeps the overview concise, but the references are not clearly linked (no file paths or markdown links) and it's unclear where to find the 'Call Examples' or the sub-agent definitions, making navigation harder than it should be.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: shinpr/claude-code-workflows
Commit: 2e719be

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.