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.
82
57%
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 like 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', or 'token swap'.
Suggestions
Expand trigger terms to include common DeFi-related phrases users might say, such as 'liquidity pool', 'yield farming', 'token swap', 'DEX', 'DAO voting', or 'Solidity'.
| 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 production-ready templates for staking, AMMs, governance, and lending systems') 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 or web development skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
29%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides complete, executable Solidity templates for common DeFi protocols, which is its primary strength. However, it is severely undermined by being a massive code dump with no workflow guidance, no deployment/testing instructions, no security considerations, and no progressive disclosure. For financial smart contracts, the complete absence of validation steps, security checklists, and testing workflows is a critical deficiency.
Suggestions
Move each contract template to its own file (e.g., templates/staking.sol, templates/amm.sol) and replace inline code with a brief description and link to each template.
Add a deployment workflow with explicit validation steps: compile -> test -> audit checklist -> deploy to testnet -> verify -> deploy to mainnet.
Add a security considerations section covering reentrancy, oracle manipulation, flash loan attacks, and other DeFi-specific risks with concrete mitigation patterns.
Add testing examples (e.g., Foundry/Hardhat test snippets) as validation checkpoints before deployment.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines of Solidity code. It dumps full contract implementations for 4+ protocols without summarization. Much of this is boilerplate that Claude already knows (standard ERC20Votes patterns, basic AMM math, standard staking reward distribution). The 'When to Use' section is also unnecessary padding. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The code is fully executable, complete Solidity contracts with proper imports, events, constructors, and all functions implemented. These are copy-paste ready production templates that can be compiled and deployed directly. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is zero workflow guidance - no deployment steps, no testing instructions, no validation checkpoints, no security audit checklist. For smart contracts handling financial assets, the absence of any verification steps (testing, auditing, deployment sequence) is a critical gap. These are destructive/financial operations that absolutely need validation workflows. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a monolithic wall of code with no references to separate files. The 400+ lines of contract code should be split into individual template files with the SKILL.md providing an overview and links. There's no navigation structure beyond basic H2 headers. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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
70444e5
- 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.