language-design

I've been digging through skill implementations lately, and your approach to language design caught my attention—the way you're handling the progression from theory to practical application is pretty solid. Scored 91, which puts you in that sweet spot where the foundation is strong but there's still room to tighten things up.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 91/100, solid A territory. This is based on Anthropic's skill best practices. Your Writing Style is flawless (10/10)—dense, declarative, zero marketing fluff. The Progressive Disclosure Architecture (28/30) is where you're really winning with that layered approach. The one gap is Spec Compliance (12/15)—you're leaving some discoverability on the table.

What's Working Well

• Writing is chef's kiss. Zero second-person pronouns, perfect voice/tense consistency, every token earns its place. That's the kind of precision most skills struggle with.
• Reference architecture is clean. The layering—SKILL.md for core patterns, separate files for error-handling and builtins—shows you understand token economy. Files stay appropriately scoped.
• The Lexer → Parser → AST → Interpreter progression actually works. You've got complete, working examples for each component. That's not common. Most skills half-ass the examples.
• Trigger terms are solid. "lexer", "parser", "AST", "interpreter"—these are the exact terms someone searching for this skill would use. Discoverability is locked in.

The Big One: Add More Trigger Phrases to the Description

Your description mentions only 1-2 trigger phrases when it could have 4-5. Right now you're getting found for specific searches, but you're missing compound searches.

Current state: Description is minimal, hitting the lexer/pa...