architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture
15
0%
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 ./plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/architect-review/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 reads as a title or role label rather than a functional skill description, providing no concrete actions, no trigger terms, and no guidance on when to use it. It also uses an implied first/second-person framing ('Master software architect') rather than describing what the skill does in third person.
Suggestions
Replace the role-based title with concrete actions in third person, e.g., 'Designs system architectures, evaluates trade-offs between microservices and monoliths, creates architecture decision records (ADRs), and reviews code structure for scalability.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about system design, architecture patterns, microservices, scalability, or needs help structuring a new application.'
Narrow the scope to a specific architectural niche (e.g., cloud-native, event-driven, domain-driven design) to reduce conflict risk with other development-related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language ('Master software architect') with no concrete actions listed. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does—no verbs like 'designs', 'reviews', or 'creates'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. There is no 'Use when...' clause and no description of capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 'Modern architecture' is overly generic and could mean many things. There are no natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill—no mention of specific patterns, frameworks, or architectural concerns. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Software architect' and 'modern architecture' are extremely broad and would conflict with virtually any coding, design, or architecture-related skill. There is nothing to distinguish this from other development skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a persona description and knowledge inventory rather than an actionable skill. It spends the vast majority of its tokens listing technologies, patterns, and behavioral traits that Claude already knows, while providing almost no concrete guidance on how to actually perform an architectural review. The skill lacks executable examples, specific templates, concrete evaluation criteria, and meaningful workflow steps.
Suggestions
Replace the massive 'Capabilities' and 'Knowledge Base' sections with a concise architectural review checklist containing specific, concrete evaluation criteria (e.g., 'Check service boundaries align with bounded contexts by verifying each service owns its data store').
Add a concrete output template—for example, an ADR format or architectural review report structure with specific sections and example content that Claude should produce.
Expand the 4-step 'Instructions' into a detailed workflow with explicit validation checkpoints, such as 'Before recommending changes, verify: (1) you understand the current deployment topology, (2) you've identified all downstream dependencies, (3) you've assessed rollback strategies.'
Add at least one complete example interaction showing input context and the expected architectural review output, so Claude has a concrete model to follow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with information Claude already knows. The massive 'Capabilities' section is essentially a laundry list of technologies and patterns (SOLID principles, design patterns, cloud services, etc.) that Claude is already deeply familiar with. The 'Behavioral Traits', 'Knowledge Base', and 'Expert Purpose' sections add no actionable value—they describe a persona rather than providing instructions. This skill could be reduced to ~20% of its current size without losing any useful guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no concrete code, commands, templates, or executable examples. The 'Instructions' section is four vague bullet points ('Gather system context', 'Evaluate architecture decisions'). The 'Response Approach' is similarly abstract. There are no specific formats for ADRs, no example review outputs, no checklists with concrete criteria, and no templates Claude could actually use to produce consistent architectural reviews. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step workflow in 'Instructions' is extremely vague ('Gather system context, goals, and constraints' → 'Evaluate architecture decisions and identify risks') with no validation checkpoints, no concrete criteria for evaluation, and no feedback loops. The 'Response Approach' lists 8 steps but they are equally abstract. For a skill involving architectural review—which can have significant impact—there are no verification or validation steps. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no meaningful structure beyond flat sections. The massive capabilities listing should either be removed (Claude knows these topics) or organized into referenced files. There is no bundle to support progressive disclosure, and the content doesn't attempt to organize itself for efficient navigation. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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
- sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
- Commit
22710e9
- 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.