tool-design

I've been digging into how tools evolve as systems grow more complex, and your skill nails the progression from "what should this do" to "how do we actually build it"—the fact that you scored 92 says you're handling the hard part most people skip over.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 92/100, solidly in A territory. This is based on Anthropic's best practices for skill design. Your writing style is the strongest pillar (9/10)—clear, objective, and technically sound. The weakest spot is spec compliance (12/15), mostly because your description could lean harder on trigger phrases for discoverability.

What's Working Well

• Writing Style is tight — Your 9/10 here reflects genuinely professional docs. The consolidation principle is explained without fluff, and you use imperative language cleanly. The Tool Selection Framework feels like something someone would actually follow.

• Architecture is thoughtfully layered — SKILL.md gives the overview, best_practices.md goes deep (177 lines), but you're not repeating yourself. That's how you score 26/30 on Progressive Disclosure Architecture. The reference file pattern lets someone get oriented quickly without drowning in details.

• Utility is solid (18/20) — Your Tool-Testing Agent Pattern and the well-designed vs. poorly-designed tool comparisons give developers real leverage. The feedback loops section actually walks through how to iterate, not just talk about it.

The Big One: Missing Table of Contents

Here's what's holding back an extra 1-2 points: SKILL.md runs 270 lines and best_practices.md hits 177 lines, but neither has a TOC. This hurts navigation signals in your PDA score.

For someone scrolling through, a simple TOC after your metadata makes a h...