agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Skill reviewer

Skill zrosenbauer/skills/skills/skill-reviewer

This skill should be used when the user wants to review, audit, or sanity-check an existing agent skill in this repo against authoring conventions. Common triggers include "review the X skill", "audit this skill", "check skill X against repo conventions", "is this skill any good", "second opinion on skill X", "sanity check skill X", and "review skill X before publishing". Produces a severity-tiered report (error / warn / info) with a Clean section even on pass, and classifies the skill type. Skip when authoring a brand-new skill (use skill-creator) or running general code review (use code-reviewer).From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add zrosenbauer/skills --skill skill-reviewer

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

2 things 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.
  • runs commandsInstructs the agent to run 1 command, including `pnpm skill-toolkit lint <skill-name>`.

SKILL.md

11.6 KB, ~2.5k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

skill-reviewer

Reviews an existing skill in this repo against authoring conventions. Produces a severity-tiered report (error / warn / info) plus a Clean section, and classifies the skill type.

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS — one of:

  • A skill name (ts-best-practices) — looks under skills/<name>/ then .agents/skills/<name>/
  • A path (skills/foo/SKILL.md or skills/foo)
  • Empty — ask: "Which skill should I review?"

Workflow

1. Resolve target + run lint baseline

Locate the skill directory. Confirm SKILL.md exists. Run:

pnpm skill-toolkit lint <skill-name>

Capture the lint output verbatim — it's the floor, not the ceiling. Lint passing means mechanical rules pass; it does not mean the skill is well-authored.

2. Classify the skill type

Pick exactly one — this dictates which audit lens to apply:

TypeExamplesAudit focus
Discipline"always run the test", "never use any", "always use Result"Rationalization table present? Body covers the realistic rationalizations?
Technique"use ts-pattern for branching", "use zod for parsing"Triggers cover phrasings? Workflow is concrete (not abstract)?
Pattern"use *Params for ≥2-arg fns", "kebab-case files"Description's Skip when covers counter-examples + recognition (when NOT to fire)?
Reference"API X works like…", "convention Y says…"Declines questions outside its scope? Reference depth matches the surface it claims?

State the classification explicitly. If you can't classify it cleanly, that's itself a finding (the skill's purpose is fuzzy).

3. Read the deep references — not just the lint summary

Lint enforces frontmatter shape, naming, anti-shortcut words. Deep references cover what lint can't:

If you skip these and only cite lint-checklist.md, you're guessing at depth.

4. Audit frontmatter + description

Beyond the lint pass:

  • Description has all 3+ verbatim triggers in double quotes
  • Description has an explicit Skip when … clause naming what the skill does NOT do
  • Triggers in description are realistic (a real user would say them) — not abstract teacher-ese
  • Description states what's distinctive ("Bakes in …") — not just what the skill does
  • Body does NOT contain ## When to use / ## When NOT to use sections — routing is the description's job, and dispatchers never read the body anyway; duplicating triggers wastes tokens and creates drift risk (warn if present)
  • Claude Code extension fields present where applicable (argument-hint, user-invocable, optionally disable-model-invocation and allowed-tools) and fenced behind the # --- Claude Code extensions comment. Flag any use of fabricated fields (model-invocable, metadata) — these aren't in the official Claude Code spec; see skill-creator/references/frontmatter.md.

5. Audit body

  • ≥ 3 ## sections
  • At least one <example> block
  • No TODO / FIXME / XXX
  • Workflow steps are numbered actions (not prose)
  • Discipline skills SHOULD have a ## Rationalization table section (per skill-creator step 6) — its absence on a discipline skill is a warn
  • Body ≤ 500 lines

6. Emit severity-tiered output (with Clean section, even on pass)

Use this exact format. The Clean section is mandatory — it forces grounding the verdict in specific rules rather than vibes.

SUMMARY: <N> findings (<E> error / <W> warn / <I> info) — <skill-type> skill

## ERRORS
✗ <file>:<line>  <one-line-finding>
  <body — what's wrong, why it matters, suggested edit>

## WARNS
⚠ <file>:<line>  <one-line-finding>
  <body>

## INFOS
ℹ <file>:<line>  <one-line-finding>
  <body>

## Clean
- <specific rule that passes — e.g., "Description has 5 verbatim triggers in double quotes (description.md:38)">
- <another specific rule>
- <`pnpm skill-toolkit lint <name>` — <pass/fail summary>>

Empty severity sections render as ## ERRORS\n(none) — keeps the shape comparable across runs. A pass verdict is 0 error / 0 warn / 0 info plus a populated Clean section.

Anti-patterns (don't do these)

<bad> "Looks solid, ship it." </bad>

No grounding. The pass verdict carries no information the user can act on or revisit later. Use a Clean section listing specific rules.

<bad> "Lint passes, looks fine." </bad>

Lint is the floor. This is the lazy-reviewer failure mode — see step 3.

<bad> Manufactured nits because the skill seemed *too* clean and the reviewer wanted to look thorough. </bad>

If a skill genuinely has 0 findings, say so in the Clean section. Inventing critique to look thorough is worse than missing real issues.

Examples

<example> <input>"review skills/ts-best-practices — does it still hold up against our conventions?"</input> <output> 1. Resolve: `skills/ts-best-practices/`. Run `pnpm skill-toolkit lint ts-best-practices` → clean. 2. Classify: **discipline skill** (rules like "use *Params for ≥2-arg fns", "JSDoc on exports"). 3. Read deep references: `description.md`, `frontmatter.md`, `xml-usage.md`. 4. Frontmatter audit: trigger parity drift — `SKILL.md` has 6 triggers, `description` and `README.md` have 5. Description missing `"audit this ts file"`. 5. Body audit: rationalization table present (good — discipline skill). `@pkg/fp` in conditionals table leaks an internal-monorepo assumption. 6. Emit: 
SUMMARY: 3 findings (0 error / 2 warn / 1 info) — discipline skill

## ERRORS
(none)

## WARNS
⚠ description (SKILL.md:5)  trigger parity drift vs. README.md (5 vs 6 triggers; missing "audit this ts file")
  Add the missing trigger to description and README — the description is the dispatcher's surface.
⚠ SKILL.md:184  `@pkg/fp` reference leaks a private-monorepo assumption into a public skill
  Replace with "ternary helper" or add a one-line reference link.

## INFOS
ℹ description (SKILL.md:11)  Skip-when bundles two cases with an em dash
  Split the framework case (React/Vue/Svelte) from the functional-refactor redirect.

## Clean
- Description has Use-when phrase + 5 verbatim triggers in double quotes (description.md:38)
- Frontmatter has the documented Claude Code extension fields (argument-hint, user-invocable)
- Body has 2 <example> blocks (xml-usage.md ≥ 1 required)
- Rationalization table present — appropriate for a discipline skill (skill-creator step 6)
- pnpm skill-toolkit lint ts-best-practices — 0 error / 0 warn / 0 info
</output> </example> <example> <input>"sanity-check skills/skill-portability — i think it's fine"</input> <output> Lint clean. Classified as a **technique skill** (replaces ad-hoc provider knowledge with a structured providers.mjs lookup). 
SUMMARY: 0 findings (0 error / 0 warn / 0 info) — technique skill

## ERRORS
(none)

## WARNS
(none)

## INFOS
(none)

## Clean
- Description: 720 chars, has Use-when, 5 verbatim triggers, explicit Skip-when (description.md ✓)
- Frontmatter: argument-hint, user-invocable set; no fabricated fields
- Body: ≥ 3 `## ` sections, ≥ 1 `<example>` block, no TODO/FIXME
- Companions: README.md, LICENSE, references/, scripts/ all present
- Single-source-of-truth in providers.mjs reflects the skill's own thesis
- pnpm skill-toolkit lint skill-portability — 0/0/0

Nothing manufactured. If you want depth beyond the structural review, run node skills/skill-portability/scripts/providers.mjs --check to confirm the docUrls are still 200 — that's the skill's own staleness check.

</output> </example>

Rationalization table

Captured from baseline transcripts where reviewers without this skill skipped rules. Future reviewers: recognize your own pattern.

Skipped ruleVerbatim excuseWhy it's wrong
Read deep references beyond lint-checklist.md"relied on lint-checklist summary"Lint enforces mechanical rules; the deep references cover description quality, frontmatter shape, and XML usage rules that lint cannot check
Classify the skill type (discipline / technique / pattern / reference)(omitted entirely)Different types need different audits — discipline skills require a rationalization table; pattern skills need recognition tests; without classification you're applying the wrong lens
Use severity-tiered output (error / warn / info) even on a pass"used numbered findings" / "prose verdict"Comparable output across runs; numbered lists drift in shape; prose ("looks solid") invites manufactured-nits or vague-pass failure modes
Include a Clean section listing what specifically passes"said 'looks solid' / 'ship it'"Pass verdicts without specifics rot — six months later nobody knows what was actually checked. Clean sections force grounding in specific rules

References

What ships with it: 2 files

2.6 KB alongside SKILL.md

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. 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.