Quality review and audit for Claude Code skills. Analyzes skill structure, description quality, workflow design, token efficiency, and anti-patterns against best practices. Use when user wants to review a skill, audit a skill, check skill quality, evaluate a skill, critique a skill, lint a skill, or

Skill Review IRON LAW: Be specific and actionable. Never say "could be improved" without stating exactly what to change and why it matters for model output quality. Workflow Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED Identify the skill to review. Accept: Explicit path: /skill review path/to/skill Current directory context: if user is already in a skill folder Skill name: search within the workspace for matching skill directory Read the full SKILL.md and list all files in the skill directory. Count SKILL.md line count — this is a key metric. Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED Load references/review criteria.md for detailed criteria. Evaluate the skill across five dimensions: 2.1 Structure Compliance Questions to answer: Does the directory follow the standard layout (SKILL.md, scripts/, references/, assets/)? Is SKILL.md under 500 lines? Does frontmatter contain only name and description (plus optional allowed tools , license , metadata )? Are there unnecessary files (README.md, CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE duplicates)? Are references organized by domain with one level of nesting? 2.2 Description Quality Questions to answer: Does the description include concrete trigger keywords and phrases? Does it use keyword bombing (multiple phrasings of the same intent)? Is it self contained — can a router understand what this skill does without reading the body? Does it avoid putting "When to Use" info in the body instead of the description? Would a user's natural language query match this description? 2.3 Workflow Design Questions to answer: Is there a trackable checklist with copy paste friendly format? Are critical steps marked with ⚠️ REQUIRED or ⛔ BLOCKING? Are there confirmation gates before destructive/generative operations? Is the workflow linear and progressive, or does it jump around? Are sub steps used where complexity demands it? 2.4 Token Efficiency Questions to answer: Is there an Iron Law or core constraint at the top? Does SKILL.md only contain what Claude doesn't already know? Are references loaded progressively (on demand) rather than all upfront? Are instructions in imperative form (not "You should...")? Are scripts executed rather than loaded into context? Is there redundancy between SKILL.md and reference files? 2.5 Anti Pattern Detection Check for these known bad patterns: Vague directives ("ensure good quality", "make it better") Placeholder residue (TODO, FIXME, xxx, TBD) Over specification of things Claude already knows No anti patterns section (model has no guardrails against lazy defaults) Missing pre delivery checklist (no concrete verification criteria) Giant monolithic SKILL.md with no reference extraction Instructions that describe WHAT rather than constrain HOW Step 3: Report ⚠️ REQUIRED Output Format Present the review in this order: 1. Strengths — What this skill does well. Be specific: quote the actual lines or patterns that work. Minimum 2 strengths, even for weak skills (find what's salvageable). 2. Suggestions — Improvements sorted by impact (highest first). Each suggestion must include: What : the specific issue found Where : file and location Fix : concrete actionable change (show before/after when helpful) Group suggestions by dimension only if there are many (5+). Otherwise present as a flat prioritized list. Tone Direct, constructive, collegial Lead with genuine strengths — not filler praise Suggestions are opportunities, not failures If the skill is already solid, say so briefly and move on Anti Patterns for This Skill Giving vague praise ("nice structure!") without quoting what specifically works Listing problems without actionable fixes Reviewing against personal taste rather than the documented principles Suggesting over engineering for simple skills Flagging missing features that the skill intentionally omits (check if simplicity is the point)

skill-review