multi-cloud-architecture
Design multi-cloud architectures using a decision framework to select and integrate services across AWS, Azure, GCP, and OCI. Use when building multi-cloud systems, avoiding vendor lock-in, or leveraging best-of-breed services from multiple providers.
59
48%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/cloud-infrastructure/skills/multi-cloud-architecture/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 with excellent trigger terms and completeness, clearly stating both what the skill does and when to use it. The main weakness is that the capabilities could be more specific—listing concrete actions like 'compare pricing models', 'design failover strategies', or 'map equivalent services across providers' would strengthen it. Overall it performs well for skill selection purposes.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions beyond 'select and integrate services', such as 'compare equivalent services across providers, design failover strategies, map service compatibility, estimate cross-cloud costs'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (multi-cloud architectures) and mentions some actions ('select and integrate services', 'decision framework'), but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions like specific architectural patterns, migration steps, or configuration tasks. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (design multi-cloud architectures using a decision framework to select and integrate services across providers) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering building multi-cloud systems, avoiding vendor lock-in, or leveraging best-of-breed services). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'multi-cloud', 'vendor lock-in', 'best-of-breed', and names all four major providers (AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI). These are terms users naturally use when discussing multi-cloud strategy. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The multi-cloud focus across four named providers with a decision framework creates a clear niche. It's unlikely to conflict with single-cloud skills or general architecture skills due to the explicit multi-cloud and vendor lock-in triggers. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
7%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads like a high-level cloud overview document rather than an actionable decision framework. It consists primarily of service name mappings (which Claude already knows), generic best practices, and vague migration phases without any concrete decision criteria, executable examples, or validation steps. The promised 'decision framework' is entirely absent—there are no scoring rubrics, decision trees, or specific criteria for choosing between providers or patterns.
Suggestions
Replace the comparison tables with an actual decision framework: define weighted criteria (latency, cost, compliance, team expertise) and provide a concrete scoring template or decision tree for selecting providers/services.
Add executable Terraform or architecture-as-code examples showing how to implement at least one multi-cloud pattern (e.g., the DR pattern with specific resource definitions).
Move the service comparison tables to the referenced `references/service-comparison.md` file and keep only the decision logic in the main skill.
Add validation checkpoints to the migration workflow—e.g., specific commands to verify connectivity, latency benchmarks to meet before proceeding, and rollback criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose with large comparison tables that Claude already knows, generic best practices lists, and high-level migration phases that add no novel information. Almost every section restates common cloud knowledge without providing unique decision-making logic or executable guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The content is entirely descriptive with no executable code, commands, or concrete examples. The 'decision framework' promised in the description is absent—there are no decision trees, scoring criteria, or specific thresholds to guide actual architectural decisions. Statements like 'Design for failure across clouds' are vague platitudes. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The migration strategy lists phases but with no validation checkpoints, no concrete commands, no feedback loops, and no criteria for when to proceed between phases. Multi-cloud architecture decisions involve complex tradeoffs but no decision workflow or evaluation criteria are provided. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There are two references to external files (service-comparison.md and multi-cloud-patterns.md) which is good, but the main file itself is a monolithic wall of tables and lists that could be significantly trimmed. The inline comparison tables should be in the referenced files, with only the decision framework logic in the main skill. | 2 / 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
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.