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.
47
48%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
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 completeness (clear 'what' and 'when' clauses) and strong trigger terms covering natural user language around multi-cloud scenarios. The main weakness is that the specificity of capabilities could be improved by listing more concrete actions beyond 'select and integrate services' — for example, mentioning cost comparison, service mapping across providers, or failover design.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'map equivalent services across providers, design failover strategies, compare pricing models, and create service integration patterns'.
| 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 seeking this kind of help. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The multi-cloud focus with a specific decision framework across four named providers creates a clear niche. It's unlikely to conflict with single-cloud provider 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 overview or study guide for multi-cloud concepts rather than an actionable skill for Claude. It consists almost entirely of information Claude already knows (cloud service name mappings, generic best practices, abstract migration phases) with no executable code, concrete decision frameworks, or specific implementation guidance. The content would need a fundamental rewrite to provide genuine value.
Suggestions
Replace generic service comparison tables with a concrete decision framework—e.g., specific criteria (latency requirements, compliance needs, cost thresholds) mapped to recommended provider choices with executable Terraform snippets.
Add actionable, copy-paste-ready code examples such as Terraform modules for multi-cloud deployment, a concrete Kubernetes manifest for cross-cloud workloads, or a script for cost comparison across providers.
Transform the abstract migration phases into a concrete workflow with validation checkpoints—e.g., specific commands to run inventory tools, benchmark scripts, health check validations before proceeding to next phase.
Remove content Claude already knows (what EC2 maps to in Azure, generic advice like 'right-size resources') and focus on non-obvious decision heuristics, gotchas, and provider-specific quirks that would genuinely help architecture decisions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is verbose and largely consists of information Claude already knows—service name mappings across cloud providers, generic migration phases, and generic best practices like 'design for failure' and 'train teams on multiple clouds.' Very little here adds novel, non-obvious knowledge. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no executable code, no concrete commands, no specific configuration examples, and no copy-paste-ready artifacts. Everything is abstract guidance—lists of service names, vague strategy phases, and generic best practices that describe rather than instruct. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The migration strategy has phases but they are entirely abstract with no validation checkpoints, no specific commands, no decision criteria, and no feedback loops. The multi-cloud patterns are described at a high level without any sequenced implementation steps. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `references/service-comparison.md` and `references/multi-cloud-patterns.md`, and links to related skills, showing some structural intent. However, no bundle files exist to support these references, and the main file contains large comparison tables that could be offloaded, while the core content that should remain is too thin. | 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
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.