skill-review
- Repo stars 3,526
- Author updated Live
- Author repo sanyuan-skills
- Domain
- Security
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @sanyuan0704 · 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
- Shell exec
- Write / modify
- 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-review
description: Quality review and audit for Claude Code skills. Analyzes skill structure, description quality…
category: security
runtime: no special runtime
---
# skill-review output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: 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 validate a skill. Triggers: 'review skill', 'audit skill', 'skill quality', 'check my skill', 'evaluate skill', 'skill lint', 'validate skill', 'skill review', 'is this skill good', 'improve this skill'..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Workflow / Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED / Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “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 validate a skill. Triggers: 'review skill', 'audit skill', 'skill quality', 'check my skill', 'evaluate skill', 'skill lint', 'validate skill', 'skill review', 'is this skill good', 'improve this skill'.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Workflow / Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED / Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED” 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, run shell commands, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; 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. Choose the trigger
The source mentions slash commands such as `/skill-review`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Provide inputs and boundaries
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, run shell commands, write/modify files.
Validate with a small run
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Workflow / Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED / Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Review before delivery
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: skill-review
description: Quality review and audit for Claude Code skills. Analyzes skill structure, description quality…
category: security
source: sanyuan0704/sanyuan-skills
---
# skill-review
## When to use
- Quality review and audit for Claude Code skills. Analyzes skill structure, description quality, workflow design, token…
- 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 “Workflow / Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED / Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, run shell commands, write/modify files; 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. Evidence boundary and execution chain
The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "skill-review" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Workflow / Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED / Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, run shell commands, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
}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
Skill Review Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Load Target ⚠️ REQUIRED
- [ ] 1.1 Identify skill path
- [ ] 1.2 Read SKILL.md and inventory all files
- [ ] Step 2: Analyze ⚠️ REQUIRED
- [ ] 2.1 Structure compliance
- [ ] 2.2 Description quality
- [ ] 2.3 Workflow design
- [ ] 2.4 Token efficiency
- [ ] 2.5 Anti-pattern detection
- [ ] Step 3: Report ⚠️ REQUIRED
- [ ] 3.1 Strengths (what's done well)
- [ ] 3.2 Suggestions (prioritized improvements)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
nameanddescription(plus optionalallowed-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)
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review