app-builder
tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill app-builderMain application building orchestrator. Creates full-stack applications from natural language requests. Determines project type, selects tech stack, coordinates agents.
62%
Overall
Validation
Implementation
Activation
Validation
69%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
body_output_format | No obvious output/return/format terms detected; consider specifying expected outputs | Warning |
Total | 11 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
73%This skill excels at organization and token efficiency, serving as a clean orchestration hub with excellent progressive disclosure through well-structured tables and clear file references. However, it lacks concrete executable guidance and validation checkpoints that would make the multi-agent coordination workflow more robust and actionable.
Suggestions
Add concrete commands or code snippets showing how to invoke each agent (e.g., actual function calls or CLI commands)
Include validation checkpoints in the workflow (e.g., 'Verify schema before proceeding to API routes', 'Check for build errors after scaffolding')
Add a brief error handling section showing what to do when project detection is ambiguous or agent coordination fails
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Uses tables for quick reference, no unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude knows. Every section serves a clear purpose with minimal prose. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides good structural guidance with clear file references and template links, but lacks executable code or concrete commands. The usage example shows a process flow but not actual implementation steps or commands to run. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The usage example shows a numbered sequence, but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops. No explicit guidance on what to do if detection fails, how to verify agent coordination succeeded, or error recovery steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with clear content map, one-level-deep references to specific files, and well-organized tables. The 'When to Read' column provides clear navigation guidance for selective reading. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Activation
33%The description provides a reasonable overview of the skill's purpose as an application-building orchestrator but suffers from missing explicit trigger guidance and lacks the natural keywords users would actually say when needing this skill. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause significantly limits Claude's ability to correctly select this skill from a large pool.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios like 'when user asks to build an app', 'create a new project', 'scaffold a website', or 'start a full-stack application'
Include natural user keywords and variations such as 'build', 'create', 'new app', 'web app', 'project setup', 'scaffold', and common framework names
Specify concrete application types supported (e.g., 'web apps, APIs, React projects, Node backends') to improve specificity and distinctiveness
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (full-stack applications) and some actions (determines project type, selects tech stack, coordinates agents), but lacks concrete specifics about what types of applications, which tech stacks, or what coordination entails. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (creates applications, determines project type, etc.) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'full-stack applications' and 'natural language requests', but misses common user phrases like 'build an app', 'create a website', 'new project', 'scaffold', or specific framework names users might mention. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'orchestrator' and 'coordinates agents' language provides some distinction, but 'full-stack applications' and 'natural language requests' are broad enough to potentially conflict with other coding or project-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 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.