This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze skill quality", "evaluate this skill", "review skill quality", "check my skill", or "generate quality report". Evaluates local skills across description quality, content organization, writing style, and structural integrity.

Skill Quality Reviewer Overview A meta skill for evaluating the quality of Claude Skills. Perform comprehensive analysis across four key dimensions—description quality (25%), content organization (30%), writing style (20%), and structural integrity (25%)—to generate weighted scores, letter grades, and actionable improvement plans. Use this skill to validate skills before sharing, identify improvement opportunities, or ensure compliance with skill development best practices. When to Use This Skill Invoke this skill when: Analyzing a skill's quality before distribution Reviewing skill documentation for best practices Evaluating adherence to skill development standards Generating improvement recommendations for existing skills Validating skill structure and completeness Trigger phrases: "Analyze skill quality for ./my skill" "Evaluate this skill: ~/.claude/skills/api helper" "Review skill quality of git workflow" "Check my skill for best practices" "Generate quality report for this skill" Review Modes Use one of three review modes depending on the task: 1. score only fast first pass grading for one skill. 2. remediation backlog convert findings into P0 / P1 / P2 fix queues with concrete evidence. 3. batch portfolio review multiple skills together, cluster repeated issues, and produce a prioritized shortlist. Prefer remediation backlog when the user asks what to fix next. Prefer batch portfolio when auditing many skills at once. Analysis Workflow Step 1: Load the Skill Accept skill path as input. Verify the path exists and contains SKILL.md . Read the complete skill directory structure. Validate: SKILL.md exists Directory is readable Path points to a valid skill Step 2: Parse YAML Frontmatter Extract and validate the YAML frontmatter from SKILL.md. Required fields: name Skill identifier description Trigger description with phrases Check for: Valid YAML syntax No prohibited fields Proper formatting Step 3: Evaluate Description Quality (25%) Assess the quality and effectiveness of the frontmatter description. Scoring breakdown: Criterion Points Evaluation Trigger phrases clarity 25 3 5 specific user phrases present Third person format 25 Uses "This skill should be used when..." Description length 25 100 300 characters optimal Specific scenarios 25 Concrete use cases, not vague Red flags: Vague triggers like "helps with tasks" Second person descriptions ("Use this when you...") Missing or generic descriptions No actionable trigger phrases Reference: references/examples good.md for exemplary descriptions Step 4: Evaluate Content Organization (30%) Assess adherence to progressive disclosure principles. Scoring breakdown: Criterion Points Evaluation Progressive disclosure 30 SKILL.md lean, details in references/ SKILL.md length 25 Under 5,000 words (1,500 2,000 ideal) References/ usage 25 Detailed content properly moved Logical organization 20 Clear sections, good flow Check: SKILL.md body is concise and focused Detailed content moved to references/ Examples and templates in appropriate directories No information duplication across files Reference: references/scoring criteria.md for detailed rubrics Step 5: Evaluate Writing Style (20%) Verify adherence to skill writing conventions. Scoring breakdown: Criterion Points Evaluation Imperative form 40 Verb first instructions throughout No second person in body 30 Avoids conversational second person in the main workflow body Objective language 30 Factual, instructional tone Check for: Imperative verbs: "Create the file", "Validate input", "Check structure" Absence of: "You should", "You can", "You need to" Objective, instructional language Consistent style throughout Good examples: Bad examples: Step 6: Evaluate Structural Integrity (25%) Verify the skill's physical structure and completeness. Scoring breakdown: Criterion Points Evaluation YAML frontmatter 30 All required fields present Directory structure 30 Proper organization Resource references 40 All referenced files exist Validate: YAML frontmatter contains name and description Directory structure follows conventions: All files referenced in SKILL.md actually exist Examples are complete and working Scripts are executable Step 7: Calculate Weighted Score Compute the overall quality score using weighted dimensions. Formula: Letter grade mapping: Score Range Grade Meaning 97 100 A+ Exemplary 93 96 A Excellent 90 92 A Very Good 87 89 B+ Good 83 86 B Above Average 80 82 B Solid 77 79 C+ Acceptable 73 76 C Satisfactory 70 72 C Minimal Acceptable 67 69 D+ Below Standard 63 66 D Poor 60 62 D Very Poor 0 59 F Fail Step 8: Generate Reports Create two output documents in the current working directory. 1. Quality Report ( quality report {skill name}.md ) Executive summary with overall score and grade Dimension by dimension breakdown Strengths and weaknesses for each dimension Grade breakdown table Link to improvement plan 2. Improvement Plan ( improvement plan {skill name}.md ) Prioritized improvement list (High/Medium/Low) Specific file locations and line numbers for issues Current vs. suggested content comparisons Estimated impact on scores Time estimates for fixes Expected score improvement Output Templates Quality Report Template Improvement Plan Template yaml {current content} yaml {suggested content} Additional Resources Reference Files For detailed evaluation criteria and examples, consult: references/scoring criteria.md Comprehensive scoring rubrics for each dimension references/examples good.md Exemplary skills demonstrating best practices references/examples bad.md Common anti patterns to avoid Scripts scripts/extract yaml.sh Utility for extracting YAML frontmatter from SKILL.md scripts/skill audit.py Lightweight integrity audit for missing references, word count, and sibling path checks Related Skills skill development Comprehensive guide for creating skills code review excellence Best practices for code review Best Practices When Analyzing Skills 1. Be objective and specific Base scores on observable criteria, not opinions 2. Provide actionable feedback Each recommendation should be concrete and implementable 3. Include examples Show current vs. suggested content for clarity 4. Estimate impact Help users understand which changes matter most 5. Be constructive Frame feedback as opportunities for improvement Common Quality Issues Description Quality: Vague or generic trigger phrases Second person descriptions Missing concrete use cases Content Organization: SKILL.md too long ( 5,000 words) Detailed content not moved to references/ Poor information hierarchy Writing Style: Second person language ("you", "your") Mixed imperative and descriptive styles Subjective or conversational tone Structural Integrity: Missing required YAML fields Referenced files don't exist Incomplete examples or broken scripts Grade Benchmarks A grade (90 100) : Exemplary skills serving as templates for others All dimensions score 85+ Clear, specific descriptions Excellent progressive disclosure Consistent imperative style Complete, well organized structure B grade (80 89) : High quality skills with minor improvements needed Most dimensions score 75+ Good descriptions and organization Generally follows best practices May have minor style inconsistencies C grade (70 79) : Acceptable skills requiring moderate improvements Key areas meet minimum standards Some weaknesses in organization or style Functional but not exemplary D/F grade (below 70) : Skills needing significant work Multiple dimensions below 70 Major structural or style issues Requires comprehensive revision Usage Examples Example 1: Analyze a local skill Example 2: Review before sharing Example 3: Quality check for existing skill Example 4: Batch portfolio review

skill-quality-reviewer