agentsclimarketplace

Agents md audit

Skill neumie/almanac/skills/agents-md/agents-md-audit

Personal agent toolkit — curated skills for LLM coding agents

Install
npx -y skills add neumie/almanac --skill agents-md-audit

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 0 stars0 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

Use when auditing a CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md file. Scores six metrics (0-100), cites issues, suggests fixes. Codebase scan first, falls back to file-only when no codebase available.

SKILL.md

6.6 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Audit Agent Instruction Files

Audit a CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md file. Score it 0-100 across six metrics, cite specific issues, suggest improvements. Each run is a standalone snapshot — user makes changes, re-runs for updated score.

Input: Path to target file. Default: ./CLAUDE.md

Scope rule: Content belongs where its domain lives. A subdirectory CLAUDE.md owns domain-specific instructions (hooks, registries, patterns used in that directory). If root also documents the same thing, recommend removing it from root entirely — not shortening, not summarizing, removing. Never suggest removing domain-specific content from a subdirectory file or deferring to root.

Debt rule: CLAUDE.md sets the rules. Existing violations don't invalidate rules. Never suggest weakening a rule, adding debt counts ("121 instances are legacy"), or qualifying with "except for existing code." However, DO suggest warning agents away from prominent bad examples they'll encounter: "Legacy pages like X predate registries — don't copy that pattern." That's a gotcha, not a debt acknowledgement.

Phase 1: Context Scan

Run before scoring. Build a mental model of what the directory actually does.

  1. Directory scanfind the directory tree. Note file types, structure, entry points, configs.
  2. Parent CLAUDE.md scan — read all CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md files in parent directories up to repo root. These establish context the audited file should complement, not duplicate.
  3. Dependency trace — grep for imports/requires referencing paths outside the directory. Map shared utilities.
  4. Code signals — non-obvious patterns, complex configs, multiple entry points. For subdirectory files, also scan for // HACK, // TODO, // FIXME. For root files, skip file-level comments.
  5. Deep module detection — identify shared abstractions: registries, contexts, factories, facades. Candidates for mandatory-use rules.
  6. Mental model — what does this directory do? What would trip someone up? What deep modules must agents use and extend?

File-only fallback: No codebase available → skip this phase, score on textual quality only, note in output.

Phase 2: Score Against Rubrics

Use the context scan as ground truth. See ~/.claude/skills/almanac/agents-md-audit/references/best-practices.md for detailed writing guidance.

Signal-to-Noise (25 pts)

RangeDescriptor
21-25Every line prevents a mistake or saves significant exploration time. No catalogs, no type docs, no restating what code already says.
14-20Mostly high-value. A few lines derivable from code.
7-13Mixed — useful rules buried among file listings or generic descriptions.
0-6Dominated by discoverable content — directory trees, component lists, type definitions.

Cross-references between CLAUDE.md files ("see also pages/CLAUDE.md") are noise — agents discover them by directory traversal. Each file stands on its own. Never suggest adding cross-references. Flag existing ones for removal.

Prescriptiveness (20 pts)

RangeDescriptor
17-20Commands: "use X not Y", "never do Z." Concrete wrong/right examples. Copy-paste ready. Deep modules enforced imperatively.
11-16Mostly prescriptive. Some descriptive passages. Deep modules mentioned but not enforced.
5-10Descriptive tone dominates — explains how things work rather than what to do.
0-4Reads like documentation/tutorial.

Danger Coverage (20 pts)

RangeDescriptor
17-20Documents gotchas and "compiles but breaks" scenarios. Deep modules enforced as mandatory with "always/never" — both using and extending them. Decision framework for new code. Surfaces unmentioned abstractions from scan.
11-16Some gotchas. Some deep modules mentioned but not all enforced. No decision framework.
5-10Few warnings. Flat catalogs ("we have X service") rather than enforced patterns.
0-4No gotchas, no pitfalls, no architectural enforcement.

Deep modules: check that agents are told to use existing abstractions AND extend them (add to the registry/config, don't create parallel mechanisms). "Prefer" is too weak — "always/never" is the bar.

Self-maintenance (root files only): does the file tell agents to update CLAUDE.md when they encounter undocumented gotchas or patterns? A root CLAUDE.md that doesn't ask to be maintained will go stale.

Structure & Organization (15 pts)

RangeDescriptor
13-15Clear hierarchy. Root covers project-wide, subdirectory files add scope-specific info. Scannable headers.
8-12Reasonable. Minor issues — sections too long, slight overlap.
4-7Flat wall of text or illogical grouping.
0-3No structure.

Flag root sections scoped to a subdirectory for extraction. Apply the scope rule (above) when evaluating duplication between root and subdirectory files.

Position check: Is this CLAUDE.md at the right level? Content about a specific subdirectory should be pushed down. Project-wide rules in a nested file should be pulled up to root. Content describing code that no longer lives here means the file is orphaned or misplaced.

Conciseness (10 pts)

RangeDescriptor
9-10Dense. Every sentence carries weight. Rules lead, explanations follow briefly.
6-8Mostly tight. A few verbose passages.
3-5Wordy. Explanations longer than the rules they support.
0-2Bloated. Could cut 50%+ without losing information.

Freshness (10 pts)

RangeDescriptor
9-10Everything reflects current state. No aspirational content, no stale references. Documented paths/commands verified to exist.
6-8Mostly current. Minor drift.
3-5Several aspirational or stale entries.
0-2Significantly out of date.

Phase 3: Output

## Audit: <path/to/file>

**Total: <N>/100** — <One-sentence verdict.>

| Metric              | Score |
|---------------------|-------|
| Signal-to-noise     | __/25 |
| Prescriptiveness    | __/20 |
| Danger coverage     | __/20 |
| Structure           | __/15 |
| Conciseness         | __/10 |
| Freshness           | __/10 |

## Suggestions

### <Metric name>
- <Line N or file path>: <issue> — <concrete fix.>

Re-run to check updated score.

Cite line numbers for .md issues, file paths for codebase findings. Group by metric, skip metrics with no suggestions. Every suggestion must be actionable.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.