architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture
37
Quality
6%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
92%
1.09xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./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 reads like a job title rather than a skill description. It provides no concrete actions, no trigger terms users would naturally use, and no guidance on when Claude should select this skill. The phrase 'Master software architect' also uses an implied first-person framing that violates the third-person voice requirement.
Suggestions
Replace the role-based title with specific actions: 'Designs system architectures, creates component diagrams, evaluates design patterns, and recommends scalability solutions.'
Add explicit trigger guidance: 'Use when the user asks about system design, microservices, API architecture, design patterns, or needs help structuring a software project.'
Include natural keywords users would say: 'architecture diagrams, system design, scalability, design patterns, microservices, monolith, API design, technical architecture'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language ('Master software architect') with no concrete actions listed. It doesn't specify what the skill actually does - no verbs describing capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. No explicit triggers, no 'Use when...' clause, and the 'what' is essentially just a title/role rather than capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains only generic terms like 'software architect' and 'modern architecture' which are overly broad. Missing natural user keywords like 'design patterns', 'system design', 'microservices', 'API design', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Modern architecture' is extremely vague and could conflict with any coding, design, or even building architecture skills. Nothing distinguishes this from general coding assistance or system design skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
12%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a job description or persona definition than actionable guidance. It extensively lists architectural concepts Claude already knows while providing almost no concrete instructions, templates, or examples for actually performing architectural reviews. The content would benefit from dramatic reduction and replacement with specific, executable guidance.
Suggestions
Replace the extensive 'Capabilities' lists with a concise architectural review template or checklist that Claude can actually follow
Add concrete examples showing input (code/design) and expected output (architectural assessment format with specific sections)
Include a specific validation workflow for architectural decisions, such as 'Create ADR → Review against checklist → Identify risks → Document tradeoffs'
Move reference material (pattern names, technology lists) to a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep SKILL.md focused on the review process
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive lists of concepts Claude already knows (SOLID principles, design patterns, cloud technologies). The 'Capabilities' section is essentially a knowledge dump that doesn't add actionable value - Claude already understands microservices, DDD, and clean architecture without needing them enumerated. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, or executable examples. The 'Instructions' section is vague ('Gather system context', 'Evaluate architecture decisions') without specifying how. 'Example Interactions' lists prompts but provides no actual outputs or templates for architectural reviews. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step Instructions and 8-step Response Approach provide a sequence, but lack validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For high-risk architectural decisions, there's no concrete verification process beyond 'follow up on validation' which is too vague. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline despite being over 150 lines. The extensive capability lists could be separate reference documents, and there's no clear navigation structure for finding specific guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 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
9c177eb
- 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.