backend-architect

Expert backend architect specializing in scalable API design, microservices architecture, and distributed systems. Masters REST/GraphQL/gRPC APIs, event-driven architectures, service mesh patterns, and modern backend frameworks. Handles service boundary definition, inter-service communication, resilience patterns, and observability. Use PROACTIVELY when creating new backend services or APIs.

Overall
score

40%

Review — 32%

Does it follow best practices?

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Install with Tessl CLI

npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill backend-architect

Activation

50%

The description establishes a clear domain focus on backend architecture but relies heavily on technical buzzwords ('Masters', 'Expert') rather than concrete actions. It lacks natural trigger terms users would actually say and provides only a minimal 'Use when' clause without specific scenarios or user phrases.

Suggestions

Replace vague verbs like 'Masters' and 'Handles' with specific actions: 'Designs REST/GraphQL/gRPC API contracts, implements service-to-service communication, configures circuit breakers and retry policies'

Expand the 'Use when' clause with natural trigger phrases: 'Use when user asks to build a backend, create an API, design microservices, set up service communication, or mentions terms like endpoint, route, service architecture'

Add concrete deliverables or artifacts: 'Produces API specifications, service diagrams, and implementation code for backend systems'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (backend architecture) and lists several areas like 'REST/GraphQL/gRPC APIs, event-driven architectures, service mesh patterns' but these are more categories than concrete actions. The verbs 'Masters' and 'Handles' are vague compared to specific actions like 'design', 'implement', or 'configure'.	2 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is partially covered through capability areas, but the 'when' clause ('Use PROACTIVELY when creating new backend services or APIs') is minimal and doesn't provide explicit trigger scenarios or user phrases that would invoke this skill.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant technical terms users might say (API, microservices, REST, GraphQL, gRPC, distributed systems) but many are jargon-heavy. Missing common natural phrases like 'build an API', 'create a backend', 'design services', or file extensions.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	While 'backend architect' and 'microservices' provide some distinction, terms like 'API design' and 'scalable' are broad enough to potentially conflict with general coding skills or other architecture-related skills.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Implementation

13%

This skill is essentially a comprehensive knowledge dump about backend architecture concepts rather than actionable guidance. It lists hundreds of technologies and patterns Claude already knows without providing concrete implementation examples, executable code, or specific decision frameworks. The content would benefit from dramatic reduction and replacement with actual code examples, decision trees, and templates.

Suggestions

Replace the extensive capability bullet lists with 2-3 concrete, executable examples showing actual API design (e.g., a complete OpenAPI spec snippet, a working gRPC service definition)

Add specific decision frameworks with concrete criteria (e.g., 'Use gRPC when: latency < 50ms required AND internal service communication; Use REST when: public API OR browser clients')

Include validation checkpoints in the workflow (e.g., 'After defining service boundaries, verify: each service owns its data, no circular dependencies, clear API contracts exist')

Move the extensive capability lists to a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep SKILL.md focused on the core workflow with 2-3 worked examples

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with extensive lists of concepts Claude already knows (OAuth 2.0, JWT, REST, GraphQL, etc.). The skill reads like a comprehensive textbook rather than actionable guidance, with hundreds of bullet points explaining well-known technologies and patterns.	1 / 3
Actionability	No executable code, no concrete commands, no specific examples with actual implementation. The entire skill describes concepts abstractly ('Design APIs contract-first', 'Build resilience patterns') without showing how to actually do any of it.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 'Response Approach' section provides a 10-step sequence, and 'Instructions' gives a 4-step process, but there are no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops for error recovery, and no concrete verification steps for the architectural decisions.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline in one massive document with no clear navigation structure. The extensive capability lists could be split into separate reference files.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
license_field	'license' field is missing	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Reviewed

20 days ago

Table of Contents

Activation 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.