c4-component

Expert C4 Component-level documentation specialist. Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships.

Quality

53%

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-component/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

47%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 content is a well-organized template with a usable Mermaid example, but it functions more as a fill-in skeleton than actionable guidance: the synthesis workflow is vague with no validation checkpoints, and the single referenced playbook file is not actually bundled.

Suggestions

Replace the vague Instructions with a concrete, sequenced synthesis workflow (e.g., gather c4-code-*.md files → group into logical components → define boundaries/interfaces → generate diagram → validate against code) with explicit validation checkpoints.

Bundle the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (or point to a file that exists under references/) so the one progressive-disclosure reference resolves.

Trim the 'Key Principles' restatement of what C4 component diagrams are, since Claude already knows this, to improve token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly an efficient template skeleton, but the 'Key Principles' section restates what C4 component diagrams are (concepts Claude already knows) and large placeholder lists add padding, fitting 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides a concrete, executable Mermaid C4Component syntax block and a master-index template, but much of the guidance is unfilled placeholders ([Component name], [Description]) and the synthesis methodology itself is not given as executable steps, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Instructions section is only vague directives ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') with no real sequenced workflow or validation checkpoints for a documentation-synthesis task, fitting 'rough sequence present but many gaps; validation absent'.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-structured with clear sections and a single clearly-signaled one-level reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), fitting 'good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps' — noting the referenced file is not present in the bundle and the path uses 'resources/' rather than a bundled references directory.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 is specific and names a clear niche with several concrete capabilities, but it omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness and leaves the trigger terms as domain jargon rather than natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when creating component-level C4 documentation, defining component boundaries and interfaces, or synthesizing code-level docs into components.'

Include natural user-facing terms and synonyms (e.g., 'component diagram', 'C4 model', 'component architecture') rather than only 'C4 Component-level documentation'.

Tighten the capability list toward a single comprehensive sentence covering the full scope to push specificity from 4 toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships" names the domain and several concrete actions (synthesize, define boundaries, define interfaces, define relationships), with only minor coverage gaps, fitting the 'several specific actions' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The phrase "C4 Component-level documentation" is domain jargon rather than the natural words a user would say; it lacks common variations or synonyms (e.g., "component diagram", "C4 model", "component architecture"), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The C4 Component-level niche is clearly distinguishable from sibling C4 skills (Code, Container, Context), with only minor overlap risk against those closely related skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the fully distinct 5.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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-component/SKILL.md
Commit: 1f67c44

Reviewed: 1 day 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.