tdg-personal/laravel-verification
"Verification loop for Laravel projects: env checks, linting, static analysis, tests with coverage, security scans, and deployment readiness."
77
77%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
67%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description does well at listing specific concrete verification actions and is clearly scoped to Laravel projects, making it distinctive. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which limits its completeness and trigger term quality. Adding explicit trigger guidance and common user-facing terms would significantly improve skill selection accuracy.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause such as 'Use when verifying, validating, or preparing a Laravel project for deployment, or when the user asks to run checks, tests, or CI validation on a Laravel codebase.'
Include common tool names and user phrases as trigger terms, e.g., 'phpstan', 'phpunit', 'pest', 'CI pipeline', 'pre-deploy checks', '.env validation'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: env checks, linting, static analysis, tests with coverage, security scans, and deployment readiness. These are clearly defined verification steps. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with the list of verification steps, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The 'when' is only implied by the domain (Laravel projects). Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'Laravel', 'linting', 'static analysis', 'tests', 'coverage', 'security scans', and 'deployment readiness', but misses common user phrases like 'phpstan', 'phpunit', 'pest', 'CI pipeline', 'pre-deploy check', or 'artisan'. Also lacks a 'Use when' clause with natural trigger phrases. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'verification loop' specifically for 'Laravel projects' with the enumerated steps creates a clear niche. It is unlikely to conflict with generic testing or linting skills due to the Laravel-specific framing and the comprehensive verification pipeline scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable verification loop skill with clear sequential phases, executable commands, and appropriate safety considerations for destructive operations. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity—some explanatory prose restates what the structure already communicates, and the file length could justify splitting detailed phases into separate references. The workflow design with gating phases and validation checkpoints is well done.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly trim the 'How It Works' section since the phase structure and ordering already communicate the sequential gating logic.
Consider extracting detailed guidance for Phases 5-7 (migrations, build, queue) into a separate DETAILS.md with links from the main file to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient with concrete commands, but the 'How It Works' section restates what the phase structure already makes obvious, and some explanatory text (e.g., 'Run phases sequentially from environment checks through deployment readiness so each layer builds on the last') is unnecessary for Claude. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Every phase provides specific, executable bash commands that are copy-paste ready. The skill covers concrete tools (pint, phpstan, psalm, composer audit) with exact invocations, and includes practical alternatives (Sail, Psalm vs PHPStan, Horizon). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The phases are clearly sequenced with explicit gating logic (environment checks gate everything, linting before tests, tests before security/migrations, build readiness as final gate). Validation checkpoints are present throughout, including destructive migration review, rollback verification, and the staging-only queue health check with safety constraints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear phase headers and two summary examples at the end, but it's a fairly long monolithic file (~130 lines of content) that could benefit from splitting detailed phase guidance (e.g., migration safety checks, queue verification) into separate reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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