c4-architecture-c4-architecture

Generate comprehensive C4 architecture documentation for an existing repository/codebase using a bottom-up analysis approach.

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/c4-architecture-c4-architecture/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The workflow is well-sequenced and actionable with concrete subagent prompts and output conventions, but it is markedly verbose, lacks inter-phase validation feedback loops for a large batch operation, and references a non-existent implementation playbook. Tightening the prose and adding validation gates would meaningfully improve it.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation checkpoints between phases (e.g. 'Verify every subdirectory has a c4-code-*.md before starting Phase 2; if any are missing, regenerate them') to create feedback loops for this batch operation.

Trim concept explanation Claude already knows (the C4 model overview, the 'you don't need all 4 levels' note, and the 'Extended thinking' block) and de-duplicate the repeated prompt scaffolding across phases.

Either create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' or remove the dangling reference, and consider moving the verbose per-phase prompt templates into a separate reference file to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~390-line body is noticeably verbose: it re-explains C4 model concepts Claude already knows, carries generic 'Use/Do not use this skill when' boilerplate and an 'Extended thinking' block, and repeats large near-identical prompt-scaffolding templates across all four phases.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete Task-tool invocations with subagent_type, exact output file paths/naming conventions, Mermaid and OpenAPI spec requirements give mostly executable guidance, with only minor gaps from unfilled placeholders like [directory_path].	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The four phases are clearly sequenced with sub-steps and a success-criteria checklist, but this batch operation over every subdirectory lacks inline validation checkpoints and feedback loops (validate -> fix -> retry) between phases, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure (phases, headers, output tree) is reasonable, but large detailed prompt templates are inlined rather than split into reference files, and the one referenced file ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') does not exist in the bundle.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 clearly communicates what the skill does and occupies a distinct C4-architecture niche, but it is missing an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and lacks broader natural trigger-term coverage. Specificity is adequate but not comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when generating C4 architecture diagrams (context, container, component, code) for an existing codebase or when the user asks for architecture documentation.'

Broaden trigger terms to include natural synonyms users say, such as 'architecture diagram', 'system context diagram', 'container diagram', and 'architecture docs'.

List a few more concrete actions (e.g. 'maps components to deployment containers', 'generates OpenAPI specs for container APIs') to lift specificity above a single composite action.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (C4 architecture documentation) and one concrete action ('Generate comprehensive C4 architecture documentation') plus the bottom-up approach, but does not enumerate several specific actions, so it sits at the 3-4 boundary rather than listing comprehensive concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states the 'what' (generate C4 architecture documentation via bottom-up analysis) but lacks any explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidance.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain keywords ('C4 architecture documentation', 'repository/codebase', 'bottom-up analysis') are present, but common natural variations users might say ('architecture diagram', 'system context', 'container diagram') are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'C4 architecture documentation' is a clear, fairly distinct niche with minor overlap risk only against closely related general documentation skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 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
Path: skills/c4-architecture-c4-architecture/SKILL.md
Commit: 1f67c44

Reviewed: about 15 hours 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.