SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BD cache-components

Expert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). Use when implementing 'use cache' directive, configuring cache lifetimes with cacheLife(), tagging cached data with cacheTag(), invalidating caches with updateTag()/revalidateTag(), optimizing static vs dynamic content boundaries, instant navigation validation, 'use cache: private', pass-through/interleaving patterns, GET Route Handler caching, debugging cache issues, and reviewing Cache Component implementations.

laguagu/claude-code-nextjs-skills Agent Skills author: laguagu MIT 4 files body ≈ 1 790 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 4 d ago

Expert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). Use when implementing 'use cache' directive, configuring cache lifetimes with…

As a process D 48/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
48/100
Unfinished process
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 133): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 48/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 18 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1790 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 494: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 6 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.