tech-stack-evaluator

I've been diving into how developers choose their tech stacks, and your skill's approach to systematizing that decision-making really caught my eye—though the grading suggests there's some untapped potential in how you're structuring the guidance.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 76/100, solidly C territory. This evaluation is based on Anthropic's Progressive Disclosure Architecture standards—the five pillars that make skills actually useful to developers. Your strongest area is Utility (16/20)—the core capability is genuinely solid. But PDA is your weak point (18/30)—you're cramming 430 lines into one file when you should be layering the complexity.

What's Working Well

• Comprehensive coverage: You're addressing a real gap. The TCO analysis, security assessment, and migration path evaluation? That's exactly what teams need when evaluating stacks.
• Clear metadata: Your triggers are specific ("tech stack evaluator", "run tech stack evaluator") and your description paints a picture of what this does. That's better than most.
• Solid utility design: You've built in weighted criteria and progressive disclosure concepts—users can select analysis sections rather than getting dumped on with everything. That's thoughtful.
• Structured sections: The progression from Use Cases through Output Formats feels logical. Navigation isn't broken, it's just... dense.

The Big One: Your Architecture is Upside Down

Here's the thing: all 430 lines live in one SKILL.md file. That's the killer for PDA. You should have:

• SKILL.md: Lightweight entry point (~80 lines max)
• references/metrics.md: All your metric calculations (currently ~180 lines of repetitive detail)
• **references/exa...