alex

Turns requirements into a precise, dependency-aware implementation plan.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

65%

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

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable planning skill with concrete templates and a clear taxonomy, but it carries some persona/boilerplate padding and keeps all content inline with implicit rather than explicit validation loops. Trimming generic prose and adding an explicit validation/revision loop would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Remove or condense the generic Limitations boilerplate (hallucination/verify-before-production) since it states facts Claude already knows; keep only squad-specific constraints.

Add an explicit feedback loop, e.g. after producing the plan: verify every DoD is binary and resolvable → if any [BLOCKED] item remains, loop back to REX before handing off.

Consider moving the full Output Format template into a referenced file (e.g. references/alex-plan-template.md) with a one-line pointer, to improve progressive disclosure for the longer sections.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient bullet guidance, but the squad persona narrative ("Alex knows the full squad...") and the generic Limitations boilerplate ("AI agents may occasionally hallucinate... Always verify generated code...") add context Claude already knows and could be trimmed.	2 / 3
Actionability	For an instruction-only skill it is highly concrete: a copy-paste output template, a specific flag taxonomy ([LOW]/[MED]/[HIGH]/[SEC]/[EXT]/[BLOCKED: REX]), hierarchical numbering (1.0 → 1.1 → 1.2), binary DoD with examples, and S/M/L/XL effort sizing — all specific and ready to apply.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The five numbered responsibilities plus the output checklist give a clear sequence, and DoD/blocked-item confirmation act as implicit checkpoints, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop spelled out for the planning workflow, so it stays at the score-2 anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well organized into clear sections and is self-contained (no bundle files present to score against), but at over 50 lines everything is inline with no one-level-deep references; the over-50-line exception for scoring 3 on sectioning alone does not apply.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 concise and states a clear purpose, but it lacks an explicit usage trigger and lists only a single action, leaving the "when to use" question unanswered. Adding a "Use when..." clause with natural trigger terms would raise completeness, trigger-term quality, and distinctiveness together.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when breaking requirements into an ordered, dependency-aware implementation plan or sequencing tasks for the squad."

Surface a couple of natural user phrasings (e.g. "implementation plan", "task ordering", "critical path", "what to build first") to improve trigger-term coverage.

Optionally name a second concrete action (e.g. "flags blocked items and risks back to the orchestrator") to push specificity toward a multi-action list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names one concrete action — "Turns requirements into a precise, dependency-aware implementation plan" — with useful qualifiers, but it does not list multiple specific concrete actions, so it falls short of the score-3 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does, but offers no "when" guidance; per the rubric guideline, a missing "Use when..." clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"requirements" and "implementation plan" are reasonably natural planning terms, but there are no explicit "Use when..." triggers and common variations a user might say are missing, matching the score-2 anchor rather than full coverage.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The dependency-aware planning niche is somewhat specific, but without distinct trigger terms it could still overlap with general planning or architecture skills, fitting the score-2 anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
Commit: 6e69f00

Reviewed: 5 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.