ai-product
Every product will be AI-powered. The question is whether you'll build it right or ship a demo that falls apart in production. This skill covers LLM integration patterns, RAG architecture, prompt engineering that scales, AI UX that users trust, and cost optimization that doesn't bankrupt you. Use when: keywords, file_patterns, code_patterns.
Overall
score
33%
Does it follow best practices?
Validation for skill structure
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill ai-productActivation
17%This description suffers from a critical flaw: the 'Use when' clause contains placeholder text instead of actual trigger terms, rendering it non-functional for skill selection. The opening sentence is marketing fluff that wastes space. While it names relevant AI/LLM topics, it lacks concrete action verbs and specific capabilities.
Suggestions
Replace the placeholder 'Use when: keywords, file_patterns, code_patterns' with actual trigger terms like 'Use when building AI features, integrating LLMs, implementing RAG systems, or optimizing API costs'
Remove the marketing opener ('Every product will be AI-powered...') and replace with concrete actions: 'Implements LLM API integrations, designs RAG pipelines, structures prompts for production systems'
Add natural user phrases as triggers: 'ChatGPT integration', 'vector database', 'embedding', 'token costs', 'AI chatbot'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names domain (AI/LLM integration) and lists several areas (RAG architecture, prompt engineering, AI UX, cost optimization), but these are high-level categories rather than concrete actions. No specific verbs describing what the skill actually does. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed with topic areas, but the 'when' section is completely broken - it contains template placeholders ('keywords, file_patterns, code_patterns') rather than actual guidance on when to use this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The 'Use when' clause literally contains placeholder text 'keywords, file_patterns, code_patterns' instead of actual trigger terms. Terms like 'LLM', 'RAG', 'prompt engineering' appear in the body but the trigger section is broken. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The AI/LLM focus provides some distinctiveness, but terms like 'prompt engineering' and 'AI UX' are broad enough to potentially overlap with other AI-related skills. The broken trigger section makes conflict assessment difficult. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%This skill identifies important AI product development concerns but fails to deliver actionable guidance. The Sharp Edges table appears truncated with solution columns containing only comment headers without actual code. The patterns section names techniques without demonstrating them, making this more of a checklist than executable guidance.
Suggestions
Add complete, executable code examples for each pattern (structured output validation, streaming, prompt versioning) - currently these are just named without implementation
Complete the Sharp Edges table solutions with actual code snippets instead of truncated comment headers
Add a workflow section showing the sequence for implementing LLM features: prompt development → testing → validation → monitoring → iteration
Include concrete examples of prompt templates, validation schemas, and error handling patterns that can be copy-pasted
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The intro paragraph is somewhat verbose with unnecessary narrative ('debugged hallucinations at 3am'). The patterns and anti-patterns sections are reasonably lean but could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Critical failure: The skill describes what to do but provides no executable code. The Sharp Edges table references code comments ('# Always validate output:') but the actual code is missing. Patterns section names techniques without showing how to implement them. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No clear workflows or sequences provided. The Sharp Edges table lists solutions as truncated comments without actual implementation steps. No validation checkpoints or feedback loops for any of the critical operations mentioned. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into logical sections (Patterns, Anti-Patterns, Sharp Edges) which is good structure. However, no references to external files for detailed implementations, and the Sharp Edges table appears incomplete/truncated. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
63%Validation — 10 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_voice | 'description' should use third person voice; found second person: 'you'll' | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
body_examples | No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording) | Warning |
body_steps | No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow | Warning |
Total | 10 / 16 Passed | |
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.