Auditing skills
Skill AdrianParedez/capability-fabric/skills/auditing-skills
A model-agnostic Agent Skills library for explicit routing, bounded context, and verifiable agent behaviour.
npx -y skills add AdrianParedez/capability-fabric --skill auditing-skillsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Scores and improves an existing Agent Skill against a spec + quality rubric, then proposes or applies concrete refactors (split monoliths, sharpen descriptions, fix portability). Use to review, grade, lint, or improve a skill, or to maintain a skill library at scale. Justifies each finding with verifying-reasoning and routes fixes back to authoring-skills.
The file declares its own license as Apache-2.0. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
4.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Auditing skills
Authoring creates skills; auditing keeps them good as the library grows. This skill grades a skill against an objective rubric, finds the highest-leverage problems, and turns them into concrete fixes, so quality scales past what any single author tracks.
Use this when
- Reviewing / grading / linting / improving a skill (yours or third-party).
- Maintaining a library of many skills (periodic audit, pre-merge gate).
- After
authoring-skillsproduces a skill (the independent check). - Skip for a quick personal note-to-self skill no one else uses.
The audit
- [ ] 1 VALIDATE spec compliance (name/description/fields), pass/fail, hard gate
- [ ] 2 SCORE rate each rubric dimension 0-2 (see references); sum to a grade
- [ ] 3 DIAGNOSE find the top 1-3 issues by leverage (what most hurts use/cost/portability)
- [ ] 4 JUSTIFY for each finding, give evidence (a line, a missing case), verifying-reasoning
- [ ] 5 FIX propose concrete edits; for big issues, route to authoring-skills (e.g. split)
- [ ] 6 RECHECK re-score after fixes; confirm evals still/now pass
- [ ] 7 REPORT grade + findings + diffs + before/after score
The rubric (0-2 each; see references for anchors)
| # | Dimension | Asks |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | Spec validity | frontmatter rules met? (hard gate, fail = blocked) |
| R2 | Description quality | what+when, third person, distinct from neighbors, trigger words |
| R3 | Single responsibility | one capability? any "and also" smell? |
| R4 | Conciseness | every token justified? explains things the model knows? |
| R5 | Progressive disclosure | body <500 lines? detail split, one level deep? |
| R6 | Activation safety | "use when/not when"? overlaps disambiguated? |
| R7 | Portability | capabilities not tool names? fwd slashes? runtime-adaptation? |
| R8 | Evidence/examples | concrete examples + anti-example? consistent terms? |
| R9 | Testability | ≥3 evals present? benchmarks measurable? |
| R10 | Safety/scripts | solve-don't-punt, no magic constants, deps declared, one-way gated |
Grade = Σ/20. Ship ≥16 and R1 pass and no dimension at 0.
Diagnose by leverage (don't list everything)
Rank issues by impact, not count. A vague description (R2) that prevents activation wastes the whole skill, fix that before a cosmetic wording nit. The audit's value is prioritized improvement, not an exhaustive lint dump.
Common fixes the audit prescribes
| Finding | Fix |
|---|---|
| Monolith (R3 low) | split by capability; route via composing-skills |
| Vague description (R2 low) | rewrite what+when, add trigger keywords, disambiguate |
| Bloated body (R4/R5 low) | cut model-known content; move depth to references/ |
| Tool-name coupling (R7 low) | replace with capability phrasing + runtime-adaptation note |
| No evals (R9 low) | generate ≥3 from observed gaps (authoring-skills step 2) |
| Overlap misfire (R6 low) | add "for X use Y" cross-links to both skills |
Apply vs propose
- Propose (default for third-party / high-risk): output the findings + diffs for review.
- Apply (when authorized & low-risk): make the edits, then RECHECK. Treat edits to a
shared skill as a change requiring the
guarding-code-qualityhonesty in the report.
Runtime adaptation
- Minimum: filesystem read. Use
skills-ref validatefor R1 if available; else apply the name/description rules manually. - Auditing is reasoning + file reads, portable across all runtimes.
Files
references.md, rubric anchors (what 0/1/2 looks like per dimension).examples.md, a real audit with score, findings, and fixes.templates/audit-report.md, the report format.checklists/audit.md, the audit pass as a checklist.benchmarks/, does the audit catch seeded defects and improve scores?