skill-improve
- Repo stars 19,707
- Author updated Live
- Author repo Claude-Code-Game-Studios
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @Donchitos · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: skill-improve
description: Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewri…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# skill-improve output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewrites the skill, re-tests, and keeps or reverts based on score change. Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewrites the skill, re-tests, and keeps or reverts based on score change. Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/skill-improve`, `/skill-test`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: skill-improve
description: Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewri…
category: engineering
source: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
---
# skill-improve
## When to use
- Improve a skill using a test-fix-retest loop. Runs static checks, proposes targeted fixes, rewrites the skill, re-test…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "skill-improve" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Phase 1: Parse Argument / Phase 2: Baseline Test / Phase 2b: Category Baseline
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Skill Improve
Runs an improvement loop on a single skill: test → fix → retest → keep or revert.
Phase 1: Parse Argument
Read the skill name from the first argument. If missing, output usage and stop:
Usage: /skill-improve [skill-name]
Example: /skill-improve tech-debt
Verify .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md exists. If not, stop with:
"Skill '[name]' not found."
Phase 2: Baseline Test
Run /skill-test static [name] and record the baseline score:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific checks failed (Check 1–7)
Display to the user:
Static baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings
Failing: Check 4 (no ask-before-write), Check 5 (no handoff)
If baseline is 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, note it and proceed to Phase 2b.
Phase 2b: Category Baseline
Look up the skill's category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.
If no category: field is found, display:
"Category: not yet assigned — skipping category checks."
and skip to Phase 3.
If category is found, run /skill-test category [name] and record the category baseline:
- Count of FAILs
- Count of WARNs
- Which specific category rubric metrics failed
Display to the user:
Category baseline: [N] failures, [M] warnings ([category] rubric)
If BOTH static and category baselines are 0 FAILs and 0 WARNs, stop: "This skill already passes all static and category checks. No improvements needed."
Phase 3: Diagnose
Read the full skill file at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
For each failing or warning static check, identify the exact gap:
- Check 1 fail → which frontmatter field is missing
- Check 2 fail → how many phases found vs. minimum required
- Check 3 fail → no verdict keywords anywhere in the skill body
- Check 4 fail → Write or Edit in allowed-tools but no ask-before-write language
- Check 5 warn → no follow-up or next-step section at the end
- Check 6 warn →
context: forkset but fewer than 5 phases found - Check 7 warn → argument-hint is empty or doesn't match documented modes
For each failing or warning category check (if category was assigned in Phase 2b), identify the exact gap in the skill's text. For example:
- If G2 fails (gate mode, full directors not spawned): skill body never references all 4 PHASE-GATE director prompts
- If A2 fails (authoring, no per-section May-I-write): skill asks once at the end, not before each section write
- If T3 fails (team, BLOCKED not surfaced): skill doesn't halt dependent work on blocked agent
Show the full combined diagnosis to the user before proposing any changes.
Phase 4: Propose Fix
Write a targeted fix for each failure and warning. Show the proposed changes as clearly marked before/after blocks. Only change what is failing — do not rewrite sections that are passing.
Ask: "May I write this improved version to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md?"
If the user says no, stop here.
Phase 5: Write and Retest
Record the current content of the skill file (for revert if needed).
Write the improved skill to .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md.
Re-run /skill-test static [name] and record the new static score.
If a category was assigned, also re-run /skill-test category [name] and record the new category score.
Display the comparison:
Static: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings
Category: Before [N] failures, [M] warnings → After [N'] failures, [M'] warnings (if applicable)
Combined change: improved / no change / worse
Phase 6: Verdict
Count the combined failure total: static FAILs + category FAILs + static WARNs + category WARNs.
If combined score improved (combined failure count is lower than baseline): Report: "Score improved. Changes kept." Show a summary of what was fixed in each dimension.
If combined score is the same or worse:
Report: "Combined score did not improve."
Show what changed and why it may not have helped.
Ask: "May I revert .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md using git checkout?"
If yes: run git checkout -- .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md
Phase 7: Next Steps
- Run
/skill-test static allto find the next skill with failures. - Run
/skill-improve [next-name]to continue the loop on another skill. - Run
/skill-test auditto see overall coverage progress.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review