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.
35
20%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/cloud-architect/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 reads more like a resume headline than a skill selection guide. It names relevant technology domains and tools but lacks specific concrete actions and entirely omits a 'Use when...' clause, making it difficult for Claude to know precisely when to select this skill. Additionally, it uses a noun-phrase style ('Expert cloud architect specializing in...') rather than third-person verb descriptions of capabilities.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about cloud infrastructure design, Terraform modules, cloud cost optimization, multi-cloud deployment, or IaC templates.'
Replace the resume-style opening with concrete action verbs: e.g., 'Designs multi-cloud architectures across AWS/Azure/GCP, writes Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK infrastructure code, analyzes and optimizes cloud spending (FinOps), and implements architectural patterns like microservices and serverless.'
Add common natural language variations users might use, such as 'cloud costs', 'infrastructure as code', '.tf files', 'cloud migration', 'serverless', 'container orchestration', or 'cloud billing'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names domains (AWS/Azure/GCP, Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK, FinOps) and some general 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' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also vague enough that this falls to 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', or file extensions like '.tf'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The multi-cloud and specific tool mentions (Terraform/OpenTofu/CDK) provide some distinctiveness, but 'modern architectural patterns' is very broad and could overlap with general software architecture skills. The FinOps niche helps but the overall scope is quite wide. | 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 reads like a job description or persona definition rather than actionable instructions. It is overwhelmingly verbose, listing hundreds of tools and services Claude already knows, while providing zero executable code, concrete examples, or specific workflows. The content would need a fundamental restructuring to be useful—replacing capability catalogs with concrete patterns, code snippets, and validation-gated workflows.
Suggestions
Replace the extensive 'Capabilities' catalog with 2-3 concrete, executable examples (e.g., a Terraform module template for multi-region deployment, a cost optimization checklist with specific CLI commands).
Add specific workflow sequences with validation checkpoints for common tasks like 'Design and deploy a new architecture' or 'Optimize existing infrastructure costs', including concrete verification steps (e.g., `terraform plan` review, cost estimate validation).
Move detailed service/tool listings to a reference file and keep SKILL.md focused on actionable decision frameworks and code templates.
Remove 'Behavioral Traits', 'Knowledge Base', and 'Example Interactions' sections—these describe Claude's persona rather than providing instructions Claude can act on.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with information Claude already knows. The bulk of the content is listing cloud services, tools, and concepts (e.g., 'EC2, Lambda, EKS, RDS, S3...') that Claude is already deeply familiar with. The 'Capabilities' section is essentially a resume/catalog rather than actionable instructions. The 'Behavioral Traits' and 'Knowledge Base' sections describe Claude's persona rather than providing new information. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, or executable examples anywhere in the skill. The 'Response Approach' section is a vague numbered list ('Analyze requirements', 'Recommend appropriate cloud services') with no specifics. The 'Example Interactions' are just prompts, not worked examples with outputs. There is zero copy-paste-ready content. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Response Approach' provides a generic 8-step sequence but with no validation checkpoints, no error recovery, and no concrete steps. For a skill involving infrastructure changes (potentially destructive operations like IaC deployments), there are no verification or validation steps mentioned. The instruction 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes' is entirely vague. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is one reference to an external file ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') which is good, but the main SKILL.md is a monolithic wall of categorized lists that should largely be in separate reference files or removed entirely. The structure uses headers and bold formatting, but the content itself is poorly organized for progressive disclosure. | 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
93c57b2
- 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.