defi-protocol-templates
Implement DeFi protocols with production-ready templates for staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems. Use when building decentralized finance applications or smart contract protocols.
80
50%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.25xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/blockchain-web3/skills/defi-protocol-templates/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
85%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly identifies its domain (DeFi) and lists specific protocol types it covers. It includes an explicit 'Use when' clause that aids skill selection. The main weakness is that trigger term coverage could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings and related terminology.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'yield farming', 'liquidity pools', 'token swaps', 'DAO voting', 'Solidity', or 'DEX' to improve matching against natural user queries.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions/domains: staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems, plus mentions production-ready templates. These are concrete, identifiable protocol types. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (implement DeFi protocols with templates for staking, AMMs, governance, lending) and 'when' (use when building decentralized finance applications or smart contract protocols) with an explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good terms like 'DeFi', 'staking', 'AMMs', 'governance', 'lending', and 'smart contract protocols', but misses common variations users might say such as 'yield farming', 'liquidity pool', 'token swap', 'DAO', 'Solidity', or specific chain names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | DeFi protocols with specific sub-domains (staking, AMMs, governance, lending) carve out a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general smart contract skills or other blockchain-related skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
14%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 code dump of four DeFi contract templates with no workflow guidance, no deployment instructions, no security considerations, and no progressive disclosure. The contracts themselves are standard patterns that Claude can generate without a skill file, making the token cost unjustified. The skill would benefit enormously from being restructured as a concise overview with key design decisions, security checklists, deployment workflows, and references to individual template files.
Suggestions
Restructure as a concise overview (under 50 lines) with key design decisions and security considerations, moving each contract template to its own referenced file (e.g., staking.md, amm.md, governance.md, flash-loan.md).
Add a deployment and testing workflow with explicit validation steps: compile → test → audit checklist → deploy to testnet → verify → deploy to mainnet.
Add security checklists for each protocol type (e.g., reentrancy guards, oracle manipulation, flash loan attack vectors, governance attack vectors) since these are financial contracts.
Remove boilerplate code Claude already knows how to write and instead focus on non-obvious design decisions, common pitfalls, and configuration guidance specific to each protocol type.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~350+ lines, consisting almost entirely of full contract implementations that Claude could generate on its own. The 'When to Use' section is unnecessary padding. These are standard DeFi patterns that don't need to be stored verbatim in a skill file—a brief template outline with key design decisions would suffice. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code is concrete and mostly executable Solidity, which is good. However, there are no deployment instructions, no testing commands, no Hardhat/Foundry configuration, and no guidance on how to actually use these templates (e.g., how to deploy, configure parameters, or integrate them). The contracts are templates but lack the surrounding workflow to make them truly actionable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no workflow whatsoever—no deployment steps, no testing sequence, no validation checkpoints, no security audit checklist. For smart contracts handling financial assets, the absence of any verification steps (testing, auditing, deployment validation) is a critical gap. This is just a collection of code dumps with no process guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | All content is dumped into a single monolithic file with no references to supporting files, no separation of concerns, and no navigation structure. Each protocol template could easily be its own referenced file, with the SKILL.md serving as an overview with links. The current structure is a wall of code. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- wshobson/agents
- Commit
112197c
- 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.