component-flattening-analysis

Detects misplaced classes and fixes component hierarchy problems — finds code that should belong inside a component but sits at the root level. Use when asking "clean up component structure", "find orphaned classes", "fix module hierarchy", "flatten nested components", or analyzing why namespaces have misplaced code. Do NOT use for dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis) or domain grouping (use domain-identification-grouping).

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

50%

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

The body is well-structured and provides real detection code, but it is verbose with heavy example repetition and keeps all material in one monolithic file. Destructive refactoring workflows lack an explicit validation feedback loop.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated ss.survey orphaned-class example into a single canonical illustration and reference it from other sections instead of restating it across Core Concepts, Phase 2, Output Format, Common Patterns, and Implementation Notes.

Add an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop to the Execute phase (e.g., run the fitness functions after moving files, halt on violations, re-fix) instead of a single generic "Run tests" step, since file-moving refactors are destructive/batch operations.

Split per-language implementation notes, detection code, and fitness functions into reference files under references/ and link to them from the main body so the overview stays lean.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~690-line body repeats the same ss.survey orphaned-class example across Core Concepts, Phase 2, Output Format, Common Patterns, and Implementation Notes, and the Quick Start examples duplicate the Step-by-Step section — accurate and structured but could be tightened significantly, fitting the mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened anchor rather than the lean anchor at 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, runnable detection code (findRootNamespacesWithCode, fitness functions) but the actual flattening execution is described as instructional steps rather than executable commands, leaving guidance concrete yet incomplete — matching the some-concrete-but-incomplete anchor rather than fully copy-paste-ready at 3.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 5-phase sequence with a checklist exists, but the file-moving refactoring is a destructive/batch operation and validation is only a generic "Run tests" at the end with no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent) and the entire skill is a single ~690-line file with per-language notes, detection code, and fitness functions all inline — well-sectioned with headers but content that should be separate is inline, matching the some-structure anchor rather than the monolithic anchor at 1 or the split-with-references anchor at 3.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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, uses natural trigger phrasings, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling skills via explicit negative guidance. It fully answers both what the skill does and when to use it.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "Detects misplaced classes and fixes component hierarchy problems" and "finds code that should belong inside a component but sits at the root level" — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the single-domain anchor at 2.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what it does (detects/fixes hierarchy problems) and when to use it ("Use when asking..."), plus negative triggers, satisfying the what-AND-when-with-explicit-triggers anchor rather than the what-only anchor at 2.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Provides natural quoted triggers a user would actually say ("clean up component structure", "find orphaned classes", "fix module hierarchy", "flatten nested components"), giving good coverage of phrasings rather than just one keyword.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (component leaf-node hierarchy) reinforced by explicit anti-triggers ("Do NOT use for dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis) or domain grouping"), making it unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 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 (694 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: tech-leads-club/agent-skills
Commit: 9026164

Reviewed: 4 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.