Feedback on your lsp-implementation skill

[RichardHightower]

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 matters: A developer implementing completions needs to know: "Does my completion provider actually trigger? How do I test it in VSCode?" Without that feedback loop, they're flying blind.

The fix: Add a Testing section after your Protocol Messages. Something like:

// Test your completion provider
const result = await connection.sendRequest(
  "textDocument/completion",
  { textDocument: { uri }, position: { line: 0, character: 0 } }
);
console.log("Completions returned:", result.length); // Verify non-empty

Include: "Use VSCode Extension Development Host to test interactively—press F5 to launch a test window and validate completions, hover, and diagnostics fire correctly."

Impact: +1-2 points straight up.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Vague metadata description. Right now it says "use when implementing Language Server Protocol features." Better: list specific triggers like implementing LSP, code completions, hover tooltips, syntax diagnostics, go to definition, vscode-languageserver. That helps discoverability. (+2 points)

2. README.md is redundant. It duplicates SKILL.md's "When to Use" and "Key Topics." Just nuke it or reduce it to one line: "See SKILL.md for LSP implementation guidance." Saves tokens, cleaner navigation. (+1 point)

3. Add a TOC to SKILL.md. You're at 135 lines without a table of contents. Developers scrolling to find the Diagnostics section shouldn't have to hunt. Add one after Quick Start. (+1 point)

Quick Wins

• Biggest bang: Add testing/validation section (1-2 points)
• Metadata triggers: Expand description with specific activation phrases (2 points)
• Cleanup: Remove README.md duplication (1 point)
• Navigation: Add TOC to SKILL.md (1 point)

That's 5-6 points of low-hanging fruit that gets you to 89-90, solid A territory.

---

Checkout your skill here: [SkillzWave.ai](https://skillzwave.ai) | [SpillWave](https://spillwave.com) We have an agentic skill installer that install skills in 14+ coding agent platforms. Check out this guide on how to improve your agentic skills.