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'.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when reviewing, auditing, or optimizing skills — validates against the 7 Skill Killers checklist and produces fix recommendations.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
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 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 fireFix rules:
Use when the user says "..." or Use when [situation]"ONLY when user explicitly requests: [X]. NOT for [Y]."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.
Content the model already knows — wasting tokens on every invocation.
Check: For each paragraph, ask: "Does the model really need this?" Examples of waste:
Keep only: Project-specific conventions, non-obvious patterns, YOUR way of doing things.
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
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.
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.
The skill/rule/command was written without inspecting existing state or defining expected behavior.
Check: Was the artifact created based on:
Fail or warn if:
Fix: Add analysis step, define expected outcome, verify with linter/tests, restore any lost content.
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.
Before scoring the 5 Killers, verify structure:
Skills — required sections:
### sub-headings — NOT just a renamed heading with prose)Linter: Run ./scripts-run src/scripts/skill_linter on any skill after review — must be 0 FAIL.
Rules — must be:
Condensation safety (if condensed version exists):
Merge/refactor safety (if reviewing a merge, refactor, or restructuring):
preservation-guard rule checklistScope check:
.augment/skills/| Skill | K1 Desc | K2 Over | K3 Obvious | K4 Gotcha | K5 Size | K6 Pointer | K7 Analysis | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| laravel-dto | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Fix description |
<available_skills> descriptions. Cross-links waste tokens and create maintenance burden. Recommend removal.还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
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'.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when defining or auditing the activation event — aha-moment selection, retention correlation, falsifiable definition. Triggers on 'what is our aha moment', 'redefine activation'.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when capturing an architectural decision — file naming, next ADR number, Status / Context / Decision / Consequences, index regen; fires even without saying 'ADR'.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when reading, creating, or updating agent documentation, module docs, roadmaps, or AGENTS.md. Understands the full .augment/, agents/, and copilot-instructions structure.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。