recipe-front-build
Execute frontend implementation in autonomous execution mode
35
31%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/recipe-front-build/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 description is critically weak across all dimensions. It uses vague, jargon-heavy language ('autonomous execution mode') without specifying concrete actions, natural trigger terms, or when the skill should be selected. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably choose this skill over others in a multi-skill environment.
Suggestions
Replace vague language with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Build React components, style pages with CSS/Tailwind, implement responsive layouts, and connect frontend to APIs.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to build a web UI, create React components, style a page, or implement frontend features.'
Remove internal jargon like 'autonomous execution mode' and instead describe the operational behavior concretely if relevant, or omit it if it doesn't help with skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description is vague — 'frontend implementation' and 'autonomous execution mode' are abstract phrases that don't describe concrete actions like 'build components', 'style pages', or 'write React code'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is extremely vague ('frontend implementation') and there is no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance at all. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 'Frontend implementation' is somewhat relevant but overly broad, and 'autonomous execution mode' is internal jargon that no user would naturally say. Missing natural terms like 'React', 'CSS', 'HTML', 'UI', 'web app', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Frontend implementation' is extremely broad and could conflict with any skill related to web development, UI, CSS, JavaScript, React, etc. There is nothing to distinguish this skill's niche. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 recipe with excellent workflow clarity — clear sequencing, validation checkpoints, escalation paths, and feedback loops for error recovery. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity from repeated pattern-matching rules and the lack of bundle files to support the many external references to subagents and companion skills. The actionability is solid for an orchestration-level skill but relies on subagents for concrete execution rather than providing directly executable code.
Suggestions
Extract the repeated Consumed Task Set pattern-matching and exclusion rules into a single referenced section or companion file to reduce duplication and improve conciseness.
Provide bundle files for the referenced subagent skills (subagents-orchestration-guide, task-executor-frontend, quality-fixer-frontend, etc.) or at minimum include their expected response schemas inline so the skill is self-contained.
Add concrete git commit command examples (e.g., the exact `git add` / `git commit` invocation expected in step 6) to improve actionability of the commit step.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly detailed and well-structured for a complex orchestration workflow, but contains some redundancy — the Consumed Task Set computation rules are repeated/referenced multiple times, and some explanatory text could be tightened. The pattern exclusion lists are duplicated verbatim. However, most content is necessary given the complexity of the workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete step-by-step instructions with specific file paths, subagent types, and status field checks, which is good. However, it relies heavily on external subagents and skills (e.g., 'see subagents-orchestration-guide skill') without providing executable code or commands directly. The git commands and file operations are referenced but not always shown as copy-paste ready commands. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with a clear 4-step mandatory cycle, explicit validation checkpoints (quality-fixer-frontend before every commit), feedback loops (stub_detected → return to step 2, fix cycle for failed verifiers), and escalation paths for blocked/error states. The decision tables for readiness status and task generation are clear and comprehensive. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external skills and subagents (subagents-orchestration-guide, task-decomposer, quality-fixer-frontend, etc.) but no bundle files are provided to support these references. The content itself is a long monolithic document (~150+ lines) that could benefit from splitting the pre-execution prerequisites, execution cycle, and post-implementation verification into separate referenced files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
68ecb4a
- 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.