c4-component
Expert C4 Component-level documentation specialist. Synthesizes C4 Code-level documentation into Component-level architecture, defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships.
28
20%
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 ./skills/c4-component/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear domain (C4 Component-level documentation) and mentions some concrete activities, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection. The language reads more like a role title than actionable guidance, and it misses common user trigger terms that would help Claude match this skill to user requests.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create or update C4 Component diagrams, consolidate code-level details into component architecture, or define component boundaries and interfaces.'
Include natural trigger term variations users might say, such as 'C4 model', 'C4 diagram', 'component diagram', 'architecture documentation', or 'software architecture'.
Replace the role-style opener ('Expert C4 Component-level documentation specialist') with concrete action verbs describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Generates C4 Component-level diagrams and documentation by synthesizing Code-level artifacts.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (C4 Component-level documentation) and some actions ('synthesizes', 'defining component boundaries, interfaces, and relationships'), but doesn't list multiple concrete discrete actions like generating diagrams, producing specific output formats, or validating architecture. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (synthesizes C4 Code-level docs into Component-level architecture) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also only moderately clear, so this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'C4', 'Component-level', 'Code-level', 'architecture', 'component boundaries', and 'interfaces', but misses common user variations like 'C4 model', 'C4 diagram', 'architecture documentation', or 'component diagram'. The terminology is somewhat specialized. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The C4 Component-level focus is fairly specific and distinguishes it from generic documentation skills, but it could easily overlap with other C4-level skills (e.g., a C4 Context-level or Container-level skill) without clearer differentiation of when to use this one versus those. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%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 blank template with placeholders rather than actionable documentation. It provides no concrete guidance on how to actually synthesize C4 code-level documentation into component-level architecture—the core task it claims to support. The content explains concepts Claude already understands (C4 model basics, what interfaces are) while failing to provide the specific, executable steps needed to perform the synthesis work.
Suggestions
Replace placeholder templates with a concrete, worked example showing how to take actual c4-code-*.md files and synthesize them into a component document, with specific decision criteria for grouping code into components.
Add a clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints: e.g., 1) Inventory code files, 2) Identify groupings by responsibility, 3) Define boundaries, 4) Validate interfaces match, 5) Generate diagram, 6) Cross-check completeness.
Remove explanations of basic C4 concepts (what components are, what interfaces are) and the generic 'Use this skill when' boilerplate—Claude already knows these things.
Provide at least one complete, concrete before/after example: show sample c4-code-*.md inputs and the resulting component documentation output.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is a template full of placeholders ([Component Name], [Description], etc.) rather than actionable content. It explains concepts Claude already knows (what C4 components are, what interfaces are) and includes verbose sections like 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' that add little value. The 'Key Principles' section restates basic C4 model knowledge. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Almost entirely placeholder-driven with no concrete, executable guidance. There are no real code examples, no specific commands, and no actual component documentation—just templates with bracketed placeholders. The Mermaid diagram is a generic template rather than a working example. Claude cannot execute or directly apply any of this content. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no clear multi-step workflow for synthesizing code-level documentation into component-level architecture. The 'Instructions' section lists four vague bullet points ('Clarify goals', 'Apply relevant best practices') with no sequencing, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops for what is inherently a multi-step synthesis process. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` and mentions c4-code-*.md files, suggesting some structure. However, no bundle files are provided, so these references are unverifiable. The content itself is a monolithic template that could benefit from splitting the Mermaid syntax guide and master index template into separate reference files. | 2 / 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
8854d4e
- 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.