tdg-personal/laravel-plugin-discovery
Discover and evaluate Laravel packages via LaraPlugins.io MCP. Use when the user wants to find plugins, check package health, or assess Laravel/PHP compatibility.
75
75%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
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 that clearly identifies its niche (Laravel package discovery via LaraPlugins.io), includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with relevant trigger terms, and is distinctive enough to avoid conflicts. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities could be more granular—listing concrete actions like comparing packages, viewing ratings, or checking version compatibility would strengthen specificity.
Suggestions
Add more concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'compare packages, view ratings/download stats, check version compatibility, browse categories'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Laravel packages via LaraPlugins.io MCP) and some actions ('discover', 'evaluate', 'find plugins', 'check package health', 'assess compatibility'), but these are somewhat general and not deeply concrete (e.g., doesn't specify comparing packages, viewing download stats, checking dependencies, etc.). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (discover and evaluate Laravel packages via LaraPlugins.io MCP) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering finding plugins, checking package health, and assessing compatibility). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'Laravel packages', 'plugins', 'package health', 'Laravel/PHP compatibility', 'find plugins', 'LaraPlugins.io'. These cover common variations of how a user might phrase requests about discovering or evaluating Laravel packages. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific mention of 'LaraPlugins.io MCP', 'Laravel packages', and 'PHP compatibility'. This is unlikely to conflict with other skills unless there's another Laravel package discovery tool. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides excellent actionability with concrete MCP tool calls, clear parameter documentation, and practical examples. However, it is significantly over-verbose — explaining things Claude already knows (what API responses contain, obvious best practices like 'match the Laravel version'), repeating information across sections, and including tables that add little value. Trimming redundant sections would make this a much stronger skill.
Suggestions
Remove the 'Response Interpretation' section entirely — Claude can read and interpret MCP tool responses without being told what fields to expect.
Consolidate the 'Common Use Cases' table into the existing Examples section to eliminate redundancy.
Remove or drastically shorten the 'Best Practices' section — advice like 'match Laravel version to the target project' and 'filter by health for production' is obvious and already implied by the examples.
Cut the Laravel version notes table (e.g., 'Latest Laravel', 'Current stable') — this is time-sensitive information that will become stale and Claude already understands version semantics.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Significant verbosity throughout. The 'Response Interpretation' section restates what API responses contain (Claude can read responses). The 'Common Use Cases' table largely repeats earlier examples. Health score tables, Laravel version tables, and 'Best Practices' section contain obvious advice Claude already knows (e.g., 'match Laravel version to the target project'). The content could be cut by 50%+ without losing actionable information. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete tool calls with specific parameter names and values, clear MCP configuration JSON, and multiple executable examples showing different filter combinations. The parameter documentation is thorough and copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflows (Finding Packages, Evaluating Packages, Checking Compatibility) are listed as steps but are fairly shallow — they describe what to do at a high level without validation checkpoints. For a non-destructive read-only MCP tool this is less critical, but the steps could be more precise about how to interpret and act on results. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References related skills at the bottom, but the main content is a monolithic wall of text with sections that could be condensed or split out. The health score tables, version tables, and response interpretation sections bloat the main file when they could be omitted entirely (Claude can read API responses) or linked separately. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents