Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

skill-reviewer

Use when reviewing, auditing, or optimizing skills — validates against the 7 Skill Killers checklist and produces fix recommendations.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md9.1 KB
  • evals/triggers.json2.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Skill Reviewer

When to use

Use when reviewing, auditing, or optimizing existing skills — checking quality against the 6 Skill Killers checklist. Also for validating a new skill before saving.

Reviews skills against the 7 Skill Killers — the most common anti-patterns that waste tokens, cause misfires, or degrade agent performance.

The 7 Skill Killers Checklist

Killer 1: Vague or Quiet Description

The description is the most critical line — it's a trigger, not a summary.

Good pattern:

description: >
  Use when the user says "create a DTO", "new data transfer object",
  or asks to convert request/response data into a typed PHP class.
  Also triggers on "map this to a DTO" or "I need a value object".
  Creates DTO classes following project conventions with SimpleDto
  base class, attribute mapping, and validation.

Bad patterns:

  • ❌ "Creates DTO classes following project conventions" — no trigger phrases
  • ❌ "Handles DTOs" — too vague, won't fire
  • ❌ Only describes WHAT, never WHEN

Fix rules:

  • Start with Use when the user says "..." or Use when [situation]
  • Include 3-5 trigger phrases people actually say
  • Write in third person (injected into system prompt)
  • Be LOUD — models skip past quiet descriptions
  • End with 1 sentence describing what the skill does
  • For explicit-only skills: "ONLY when user explicitly requests: [X]. NOT for [Y]."

Killer 2: Over-Defining (Railroading)

The skill dictates every micro-step instead of guiding.

Check: Are there >15 numbered steps? Does it prescribe HOW to think? Fix: Set degrees of freedom — tight for fragile ops (migrations, deployments), loose for creative tasks (design, planning). Use bullets over numbered steps when order doesn't matter.

Killer 3: Stating the Obvious

Content the model already knows — wasting tokens on every invocation.

Check: For each paragraph, ask: "Does the model really need this?" Examples of waste:

  • ❌ Explaining what PHP strict types do
  • ❌ Describing how Laravel middleware works (in a middleware skill)
  • ❌ Listing basic Git commands

Keep only: Project-specific conventions, non-obvious patterns, YOUR way of doing things.

Killer 4: Missing Gotcha Section

The highest-signal content in a skill. Documents failure patterns.

Check: Does the skill have a ## Gotcha or ## Common Mistakes section? Fix: Add one with real failure patterns:

## Gotcha

- Don't assume X — check Y first because Z
- The model tends to forget A when doing B
- Edge case: when C happens, do D instead of E

Killer 5: Monolithic Blob

Skill exceeds size limits (see docs/guidelines/agent-infra/size-and-scope.md).

Check: Review at >400 lines. A word count alone is no split reason — split only material consulted on demand, or a procedure handed out in order (skill-writing § Progressive disclosure). Fix: Extract reference tables, templates, and examples into separate files in the skill folder, or split by responsibility.

Killer 6: Guideline-Dependent (Pointer-Only)

The skill delegates to guidelines instead of containing its own executable workflow.

Iron Rule: If a skill is not executable without opening a guideline, it is broken.

Check: Cover all guideline references in the skill — is the Procedure still executable? Litmus test: Remove → See guideline ... lines. Does the skill still tell the agent what to do?

Fail if: ≥3 guideline delegations AND ≤1 action verb AND <3 procedure steps Warn if: ≥2 guideline delegations AND ≤2 action verbs AND <3 procedure steps

Fix: Inline the essential workflow steps from the guideline. Keep the guideline reference for deep-dive details, but the Procedure must work standalone.

Killer 7: Created Without Analysis

The skill/rule/command was written without inspecting existing state or defining expected behavior.

Check: Was the artifact created based on:

  • Reading the existing implementation or related artifacts?
  • Comparing with current behavior, tests, or requirements?
  • Defining expected behavior before writing?
  • Using targeted tools for investigation?

Fail or warn if:

  • No evidence of inspecting existing state before creating/refactoring
  • Looks like blind trial-and-error or copy-paste-and-hope
  • Expected behavior is only implied, never explicitly stated
  • Refactor made artifact cleaner but weaker (lost validation, examples, or gotchas)
  • Requirements were ambiguous but no clarification was sought

Fix: Add analysis step, define expected outcome, verify with linter/tests, restore any lost content.

Pre-check: Should this be a skill at all?

Before scoring the 5 Killers, ask: Does this belong as a skill?

If the content is...Verdict
Standard tool usage (jq, docker exec, git commands)❌ Not a skill — baseline model knowledge
Single-command operations without decision logic❌ Not a skill — too thin for a workflow
Always-true constraint ("never X", "always Y")❌ Not a skill — should be a Rule
Coding conventions / reference material❌ Not a skill — should be a Guideline
Step-by-step workflow with decisions and validation✅ Skill — proceed with review
Error-prone process that models get wrong without guidance✅ Skill — even if steps seem simple

If the skill fails this pre-check → recommend: migrate (rule/guideline), absorb (into existing skill), or delete.

Structural Validation (pre-review)

Before scoring the 5 Killers, verify structure:

Skills — required sections:

  • When to use (with "Do not use when")
  • Procedure (numbered steps OR ### sub-headings — NOT just a renamed heading with prose)
  • Concrete validation step inside Procedure (must contain: verify, confirm, must pass, run test, etc.)
  • Gotchas
  • Do NOT

Linter: Run ./scripts-run src/scripts/skill_linter on any skill after review — must be 0 FAIL.

Rules — must be:

  • Short and directive
  • Always-applicable (no situational triggers)
  • Not procedural (no numbered steps — that's a skill)

Condensation safety (if condensed version exists):

  • Trigger clarity preserved
  • Decision hints or equivalent present
  • Concrete validation still present
  • Gotchas/anti-failure protection retained

Merge/refactor safety (if reviewing a merge, refactor, or restructuring):

  • Apply preservation-guard rule checklist
  • Strongest validation, example, and anti-pattern must survive
  • Scope must not broaden from merging unrelated concerns
  • Strong language must not be weakened

Scope check:

  • No overlap with existing skill or rule (name + description)
  • Single workflow per file (multiple workflows → split)
  • Update existing preferred over creating new file

Procedure: Review a skill

Single skill

  1. Validate structure (required sections present)
  2. Score each killer: ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Weak / ❌ Fail
  3. Check condensation safety (if applicable)
  4. Produce a verdict table + specific fix suggestions

Batch audit

  1. Scan all skills in .augment/skills/
  2. For each: check description format, line count, gotcha presence
  3. Produce a summary table sorted by severity
  4. Group fixes by type (e.g., "these 20 need description rewrites")

Output Format

| Skill | K1 Desc | K2 Over | K3 Obvious | K4 Gotcha | K5 Size | K6 Pointer | K7 Analysis | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| laravel-dto | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Fix description |

Output format

  1. Review report with pass/fail per checklist item
  2. Prioritized fix recommendations — ordered over the complete per-killer table above, never a subset of it. Priority is a sort, not a filter.

Gotcha

  • Don't rewrite skills unnecessarily — only fix actual killer violations.
  • A description that works (triggers correctly) is fine even if not perfect.
  • Gotcha sections grow organically — seed them, don't force 10 entries.
  • "Stating the obvious" is relative to the MODEL, not to junior developers. If the model consistently gets something wrong, it's NOT obvious — keep it.
  • Skills under 50 lines rarely have Killer 5 problems — skip that check.
  • Flag any "Related skills" section — the agent discovers skills via <available_skills> descriptions. Cross-links waste tokens and create maintenance burden. Recommend removal.

Do NOT

  • Do NOT rewrite skills that pass all 7 killers — leave them alone.
  • Do NOT add "Related skills" cross-links — the agent discovers via descriptions.
  • Do NOT force Gotcha entries — seed naturally from real failures.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when reviewing UI for accessibility — WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard nav, focus, ARIA, contrast, screen-reader semantics — even on 'is this a11y-OK?' or 'mach das barrierefrei'.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

Use when defining or auditing the activation event — aha-moment selection, retention correlation, falsifiable definition. Triggers on 'what is our aha moment', 'redefine activation'.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

Use when capturing an architectural decision — file naming, next ADR number, Status / Context / Decision / Consequences, index regen; fires even without saying 'ADR'.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

Adversarial critique — devil's advocate, stress-test, honest teardown ('poke holes', 'be brutal', 'was hältst du davon'); explicit request only. Routine code or design review → code-review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

Use when reading, creating, or updating agent documentation, module docs, roadmaps, or AGENTS.md. Understands the full .augment/, agents/, and copilot-instructions structure.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

Use for an adversarial red-team / blue-team / auditor review of an AI agent's CONFIG + behaviour (rules, skills, MCP, hooks, permissions) — attack-chain → defensive-gap list, not a code audit.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

event4u-app/agent-config12Updated Oct 18, 2026

See all skills by event4u-app

Report a problem with this skill