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 communicates both what the skill does and when to use it, with specific DeFi protocol types listed. The main weakness is that trigger term coverage could be broader to capture more natural user phrasings like 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', 'token swap', or 'Solidity'.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common variations users might say: 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', 'token swap', 'DEX', 'Solidity', 'EVM', 'DAO voting'
| 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', 'EVM', or specific chain names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | DeFi protocols with specific subtypes (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, deployment guidance, testing instructions, or security considerations. The massive inline code blocks waste token budget on boilerplate that Claude can generate from shorter specifications. Critical for DeFi — there are no security validation steps, audit checklists, or testing workflows for contracts that handle real financial assets.
Suggestions
Replace full contract dumps with concise specification tables (parameters, key functions, security patterns) and let Claude generate the full code on demand — this would cut 80% of tokens while being more useful.
Add a deployment and testing workflow with explicit validation steps: compile → test with Foundry/Hardhat → audit checklist → deploy to testnet → verify → deploy to mainnet.
Split each protocol template into its own referenced file (e.g., STAKING.md, AMM.md, GOVERNANCE.md) and keep SKILL.md as a brief overview with navigation links.
Add security checklists for each template covering reentrancy, overflow, access control, and oracle manipulation — these are critical for DeFi and represent the kind of domain-specific knowledge that actually adds value.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines of Solidity code with minimal guidance text. It dumps full contract implementations that Claude could generate on its own. The 'When to Use' section lists obvious use cases. Every token of these complete contracts competes with conversation context for marginal value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code is concrete and compilable Solidity, which is good. However, there are no deployment instructions, no testing commands, no integration guidance, and no explanation of how to customize the templates (e.g., adjusting reward rates, fee percentages). The contracts are presented as-is without actionable steps for using them. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no workflow whatsoever — no deployment sequence, no testing steps, no validation checkpoints. For smart contracts handling financial assets, this is a critical gap. There's no guidance on auditing, testing with Hardhat/Foundry, or verifying contracts before deployment. Missing feedback loops for these high-risk operations is a serious deficiency. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | All content is dumped into a single monolithic file with hundreds of lines of inline code. There are no references to separate files for individual protocols, no links to testing guides or security checklists. Each protocol template could easily be its own referenced file with the SKILL.md serving as an overview. | 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
27a7ed9
- 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.