lsp-implementation

I was reading through your LSP implementation and noticed you've got a solid grasp of the protocol details—84 points reflects that you're hitting the fundamentals well, but I'm curious about the architectural choices you made around request/response handling, especially on the more complex scenarios like workspace edits or incremental sync.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 84/100, solid B-grade territory. This is based on Anthropic's skill grading standards—your Progressive Disclosure Architecture is strongest (26/30), showing good token economy and clear layering between SKILL.md and your reference files. The weakest area is Spec Compliance (12/15), mainly because your metadata description is vague on activation scenarios and you're missing some trigger phrases that would help developers discover this skill.

What's Working Well

• Reference architecture is clean. You've got SKILL.md pointing to references/capabilities.md and references/diagnostics.md at exactly the right level—no over-nesting, and each file stays under 100 lines where it matters.
• Code examples are focused. Your completions and hover implementations show real patterns without unnecessary bloat. The Protocol Messages section gives developers the actual LSP message structures they need.
• Terminology is consistent. You use "completions," "hover," "diagnostics," "definition" throughout—that makes the whole skill feel cohesive and trustworthy to someone implementing a language server.

The Big One: Missing Testing & Validation Patterns

Here's what's holding you back the most: you show how to implement LSP features, but you don't show developers how to verify they work. This drops your Utility score from potential 20 to 17/20.

**Why it mat...