recipe-front-review
Design Doc compliance and security validation with optional auto-fixes
50
55%
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-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 too terse and lacks both concrete action details and explicit trigger guidance. While it identifies a domain (Design Doc compliance/security), it fails to specify what standards are checked, what auto-fixes are performed, or when Claude should select this skill. Adding a 'Use when...' clause and more specific capability details would significantly improve its effectiveness.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'design document review', 'security audit', 'compliance check', 'design doc validation'.
List specific concrete actions such as 'validates security requirements, checks compliance against [specific standards], identifies missing sections, auto-fixes formatting issues'.
Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as 'design document', 'design review', 'security review', 'policy compliance', and relevant file types or frameworks.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain ('Design Doc') and two actions ('compliance and security validation' and 'auto-fixes'), but lacks concrete specifics about what validation entails, what compliance standards are checked, or what auto-fixes are applied. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes a rough 'what' (compliance and security validation with auto-fixes) but completely lacks a 'when' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also weak, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'Design Doc', 'compliance', 'security validation', and 'auto-fixes', but misses common user variations such as 'design document', 'security review', 'audit', 'policy check', or file format references. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Design Doc' provides some specificity, but 'compliance and security validation' is broad enough to overlap with general security review or compliance-checking skills. The lack of detail about what kind of design docs or what compliance frameworks makes it somewhat ambiguous. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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 excellent workflow clarity and actionability — every step has concrete invocation parameters, clear conditional logic, and explicit validation/re-validation loops. Its main weakness is that it's a long monolithic document that could benefit from splitting report templates and decision tables into referenced files, and some sections could be tightened for conciseness without losing clarity.
Suggestions
Extract the user-facing report templates (Step 4 and Step 11) and the finding-pattern routing table into a referenced file (e.g., REPORT_TEMPLATES.md) to reduce inline bulk and improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the 'Auto-fixable Items', 'Non-fixable Items', and 'Design-Side Update Triggers' sections into a single compact table or move them to a separate reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly dense and information-rich, but includes some redundancy (e.g., the verdict table and the user-facing report template overlap in conveying routing logic). The scope boundary block appended to every subagent prompt is repeated conceptually. Some sections like 'Auto-fixable Items' and 'Design-Side Update Triggers' add useful but somewhat verbose context that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Each step provides concrete, executable guidance: specific bash commands, exact subagent invocation parameters (subagent_type, description, prompt), structured output templates, and clear decision tables. The skill is copy-paste ready for an orchestrator agent to follow. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 11-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Steps 9-10 re-validate after fixes), feedback loops (Step 5d re-evaluates findings after DD updates, dropping satisfied ones), conditional branching (blocked → stop, skip paths for 's' or 'd'-only routes), and a cleanup step. The user confirmation gate at Step 4 with AskUserQuestion adds a critical human-in-the-loop checkpoint before destructive changes. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external skills (subagents-orchestration-guide, documentation-criteria) and subagent types but is itself a monolithic document with no bundle files to offload detail into. The inline report templates and decision tables could benefit from being split into referenced files, especially given the document's length. However, the section structure is clear and navigable. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
adf2e4d
- 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.