cloud-architect

Expert cloud architect specializing in AWS/Azure/GCP multi-cloud infrastructure design, advanced IaC (Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK), FinOps cost optimization, and modern architectural patterns.

Quality

20%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/cloud-architect/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

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

This skill reads like a persona description or job posting rather than an actionable skill file. It exhaustively lists cloud services, tools, and concepts Claude already knows, while providing zero concrete code, commands, or executable workflows. The content is almost entirely descriptive rather than instructive, making it ineffective as a skill that should teach Claude how to perform specific tasks.

Suggestions

Replace the extensive capability lists with 2-3 concrete, executable workflow examples (e.g., a Terraform module template for multi-region deployment, a cost estimation command sequence, or a security review checklist with specific commands).

Add specific validation checkpoints to workflows, such as 'Run `terraform plan` and verify no unexpected destroys before applying' or 'Validate IAM policies with `aws iam simulate-principal-policy` before deployment'.

Move the service/tool catalogs into a separate reference file (e.g., resources/service-catalog.md) and keep SKILL.md focused on actionable instructions and decision frameworks.

Remove the 'Behavioral Traits', 'Knowledge Base', 'Example Interactions', and 'Capabilities' sections entirely—these describe what Claude already knows rather than providing novel, actionable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose. The bulk of the content is a massive enumeration of cloud services, tools, and concepts that Claude already knows. Sections like 'Capabilities', 'Knowledge Base', 'Behavioral Traits', and 'Example Interactions' are essentially restating Claude's existing knowledge rather than providing novel, actionable instructions. The content could be reduced by 80%+ without losing useful guidance.	1 / 3
Actionability	No concrete code, commands, or executable examples anywhere. The 'Instructions' section is four vague bullet points ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes'). The 'Response Approach' is a generic numbered list of abstract steps. There are no Terraform snippets, no CLI commands, no architecture diagram templates, no specific cost calculation methods—nothing copy-paste ready.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	No clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints. The 'Response Approach' lists 8 abstract steps without any verification gates, feedback loops, or error recovery guidance. For a skill involving infrastructure changes (potentially destructive), there are no validation or rollback steps defined.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	There is one reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed examples, which shows some intent toward progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files exist to support this reference, and the SKILL.md itself is a monolithic wall of lists that should have been split into separate reference files rather than inlined.	2 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Description

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 reads more like a resume headline than a skill selection guide. While it names relevant technologies and domains, it lacks specific concrete actions and entirely omits 'when to use' guidance, making it difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill from a large pool. The use of 'Expert cloud architect specializing in...' is a first-person-adjacent framing that doesn't follow the preferred third-person action verb style.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about cloud infrastructure design, Terraform modules, cloud cost optimization, multi-cloud deployments, or IaC best practices.'

Replace the resume-style opening with concrete action verbs: e.g., 'Designs multi-cloud infrastructure across AWS/Azure/GCP, writes and reviews Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK configurations, analyzes cloud spending for FinOps optimization, and recommends architectural patterns.'

Add common natural language variations users might use, such as 'cloud costs', 'infrastructure as code', '.tf files', 'cloud migration', 'cloud billing', 'serverless architecture'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names domains (AWS/Azure/GCP, Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK, FinOps) and some broad actions (infrastructure design, cost optimization), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'generate Terraform modules', 'create cost reports', or 'design VPC architectures'. The terms are more category labels than actionable capabilities.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes 'what' at a high level (cloud architecture, IaC, cost optimization) but completely lacks any 'when' guidance — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause should cap completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also somewhat vague, this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant technical keywords like AWS, Azure, GCP, Terraform, OpenTofu, CDK, FinOps, and multi-cloud that users might naturally mention. However, it misses common variations and natural phrases users would say like 'cloud costs', 'infrastructure as code', 'deploy to cloud', 'cloud migration', 'serverless', '.tf files', or 'cloud bill'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The multi-cloud and FinOps focus provides some distinctiveness, but 'infrastructure design' and 'modern architectural patterns' are broad enough to overlap with general DevOps, platform engineering, or individual cloud-specific skills. The lack of explicit trigger boundaries increases conflict risk.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 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: 0eeb6d8

Reviewed: 5 days 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.