Skill Quality Auditor#

Overview#

Evaluate a target skill with a consistent rubric and return a clear pass/fail-style verdict plus a multi-dimensional review. Prefer the bundled script for the first pass, then turn the raw findings into a concise human-readable assessment.

Workflow#

1. Identify the target skill folder.
2. Run scripts/evaluate_skill.py <path-to-skill>.
3. Read the report and group findings into:
   • final verdict
   • strengths
   • weaknesses
   • critical blockers
   • recommended fixes
4. If the script reports missing context or borderline results, inspect the target skill's SKILL.md and any referenced resources before writing the final judgment.
5. Keep the final answer decisive: say whether the skill is currently qualified, conditionally qualified, or not qualified.

Rubric#

Score the skill across these dimensions:

• structure: required files, frontmatter validity, naming, obvious TODO placeholders
• triggering: whether description clearly explains what the skill does and when to use it
• workflow: whether the body gives actionable steps instead of vague guidance
• progressive_disclosure: whether detailed material is kept in scripts or references instead of bloating SKILL.md
• resources: whether scripts, references, and assets are included only when useful and are mentioned in the body
• examples_and_outputs: whether the skill helps the agent understand expected usage or output shape
• maintainability: clarity, concision, stale metadata checks, and overall ease of iteration

Use references/rubric.md when you need the detailed scoring logic and interpretation rules.

Verdict Rules#

Use these labels:

• Qualified: no critical blockers and score is strong enough for immediate use
• Borderline: usable but needs material fixes soon
• Not Qualified: missing required structure or too weak to trust in repeated use

Treat these as critical blockers:

• missing SKILL.md
• invalid or missing YAML frontmatter
• missing name or description
• unresolved template placeholders such as TODO
• description too weak to trigger reliably
• instructions too incomplete to execute the core task safely

Output Shape#

Prefer this response shape:

Verdict#

State Qualified, Borderline, or Not Qualified in the first sentence and explain the main reason.

Score Summary#

Include the total score and 3-5 highest-signal dimension notes.

What Works Well#

List concrete strengths tied to files or sections.

What Needs Work#

List concrete weaknesses tied to files or sections.

Next Fixes#

List the smallest set of changes most likely to move the skill to Qualified.

Script#

Run:

bash

python3 scripts/evaluate_skill.py /absolute/path/to/skill

Optional JSON mode:

bash

python3 scripts/evaluate_skill.py /absolute/path/to/skill --json

The script is dependency-free and performs a deterministic first-pass audit. It is intentionally conservative: if a skill barely explains its trigger conditions or still contains template leftovers, the script should flag it instead of assuming good intent.

Review Rules#

• Prefer evidence over taste.
• Praise strengths explicitly; do not only list problems.
• Distinguish hard failures from improvement opportunities.
• If the target skill intentionally omits scripts, references, or agents metadata, do not penalize that by itself.
• Penalize unused or stale directories when they add confusion.
• When inferring quality from wording, cite the exact section or file that led to the conclusion.

Trigger Examples#

• "Check whether this skill is规范合格."
• "Review this skill and tell me if it passes."
• "Audit this skill folder and summarize the good and bad."
• "Evaluate this skill against best practices and give me a verdict."