skill-quality-review

Skill Quality Review

When to use

• Review a Skill at package level rather than only polishing prose.
• Check whether SKILL.md, the primary Prompt, metadata, examples, references, and evals/ form one consistent contract.
• Assess whether a Skill can be copied or installed independently and which conclusions still lack runtime evidence.

Output format options

• Default to a Markdown review with a conclusion, blocking issues, suggestions, information gaps, and evidence boundaries.
• Use a table when several files or evidence layers must be compared; do not replace the reasoning with a score.

How to use

1. Confirm the Skill, language, directory, and review goal; list information gaps before reviewing absent files.
2. Check architecture responsibility, scope/non-goals, triggers, input audit, output contract, progressive disclosure, and neighbor boundaries.
3. Check path, name, and semantic consistency across SKILL.md, the primary Prompt, agents/openai.yaml, examples/references, and evals/.
4. Check independent installation: relative resources still resolve when only this Skill directory is copied, with no hard dependency on another Skill's private files.
5. Report blocking issues, important suggestions, information gaps, and evidence boundaries; separate static findings from runtime/model conclusions.

Constraints

• This is a static package review. Do not execute the business task or silently modify the Skill.
• Directory completeness, skill-up validate, CLI install smoke, and Project status cannot prove runtime behavior, model effectiveness, business acceptance, Quality Score, or release approval.
• Do not invent environments, dependencies, metrics, trigger observations, or execution facts. Use UNASSESSED, NOT_RUN, BLOCKED, or INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE when evidence is absent.
• Do not create a second Eval Engine, Judge, Benchmark, or Quality Score.

Reference files

• Read prompts/skill-quality-review.md for the complete review output contract.
• Inspect the target Skill's SKILL.md, Prompt, metadata, references, examples, and evals/ together.
• Use repository contracts as optional deep references and preserve missing-runtime limitations.

Common pitfalls

• Treating directory completeness, CLI smoke, or Project status as runtime or model evidence.
• Reviewing only prose while missing metadata, eval, installation, or bilingual inconsistencies.
• Adding a cross-Skill private-file dependency to make a package appear complete.

Best practices

• Start with scope and information gaps, then trace each claim to a file and evidence level.
• Separate blocking defects from suggestions and unassessed areas.
• Keep the review package-level, reproducible, and independent of local machine paths.

Progressive disclosure

• Read prompts/skill-quality-review.md before producing the report; it is the output contract.
• Read the target Skill's evals/ when behavior coverage matters, but do not call configuration validation runtime evidence.
• Read repository Evaluation Contract and local trace rules for deeper evidence when available. If a copied Skill does not contain them, preserve the limitation instead of creating filesystem coupling.

Pre-delivery checklist

• Scope, document roles, and input gaps are explicit
• Triggers, inputs, outputs, constraints, independent installation, and Eval readiness were checked
• Blocking issues, suggestions, unassessed items, and evidence levels are traceable
• Static checks are not presented as runtime/model evidence

Choosing the review scope

Use this Skill for the package-wide contract and installation readiness, including files, metadata, resources, examples, and evals. Use skill-prose-review for a bounded passage, Prompt, or document contract; a prose-only review cannot establish package completeness.