component-common-domain-detection

Finds duplicate business logic spread across multiple components and suggests consolidation. Use when asking "where is this logic duplicated?", "find common code between services", "what can be consolidated?", "detect shared domain logic", or analyzing component overlap before refactoring. Do NOT use for code-level duplication detection (use linters) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis).

Quality

73%

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 ./packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/component-common-domain-detection/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 well-structured and actionable with real code and example outputs, but it is markedly verbose due to repeated restatements of the same process and explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Progressive disclosure is weak because everything lives in one large file with no reference split.

Suggestions

Collapse the duplicated workflow descriptions (Quick Start examples, Step-by-Step Process, Analysis Process phases, and Common Patterns) into a single canonical sequence to remove padding.

Move the fitness functions, per-language implementation notes, and detection code snippets into separate reference files (e.g. references/fitness-functions.js, references/detection-strategies.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Trim the 'Domain vs Infrastructure Functionality' and 'Notes' sections to only the non-obvious specifics, assuming Claude's existing knowledge of coupling and domain concepts.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~600-line body restates the same workflow three times ('Step-by-Step Process', the five 'Analysis Process' phases, and 'Common Patterns to Look For') and explains domain-vs-infrastructure concepts Claude already knows, producing several padded sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable JavaScript (extractLeafNode, groupByLeafNode, findSharedClasses, fitness-function checks) plus example output formats; minor gaps remain in the 'read source code of each component' steps which stay high-level.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-phase sequence (Identify Patterns -> Detect Shared Classes -> Analyze Similarity -> Assess Coupling -> Recommend) is paired with an end-of-process checklist serving as validation; minor verification gaps remain but the skill is analytical rather than destructive.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers give structure, but the entire skill is a single monolithic file with no bundle references; sizable chunks (fitness functions, per-language implementation notes, code snippets) that belong in separate reference files are inlined.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

90%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 strong: it states what the skill does, gives multiple natural trigger phrases, and draws a clear boundary against related skills. The only minor weakness is specificity, where it lists just two top-level actions rather than a comprehensive enumeration.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('duplicate business logic spread across multiple components') and two concrete actions ('Finds duplicate... and suggests consolidation'), but does not enumerate a broader set of specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Finds duplicate business logic... suggests consolidation') and when ('Use when asking...'), with concrete trigger phrases and an explicit negative-boundary clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes five natural user phrases in quotes ('where is this logic duplicated?', 'find common code between services', 'what can be consolidated?', 'detect shared domain logic', 'analyzing component overlap before refactoring') covering synonyms and phrasings a user would naturally say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (component-level domain duplication) with an explicit 'Do NOT use for code-level duplication detection (use linters) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis)' boundary, minimizing conflict with adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (607 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: tech-leads-club/agent-skills
Path: packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/component-common-domain-detection/SKILL.md
Commit: fc886b7

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.