This is an excellent skill description that clearly articulates specific concrete actions, provides explicit trigger guidance via a 'Use when...' clause with multiple natural-language scenarios, and occupies a distinct niche (final plan validation) that minimizes conflict risk. It uses proper third-person voice throughout and is concise without being vague.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: executing the full test suite, lint and format checks, removing temporary scaffolding, and writing a structured validation report with command outputs and success-criteria evidence to a specific file path.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (runs test suite, lint/format checks, removes scaffolding, writes validation report) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing multiple trigger scenarios.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'verify a completed implementation', 'confirm all success criteria are met', 'wrap up a plan', 'finalize a feature or fix', 'sign off on a change', 'validation', 'test suite', 'lint'. Good coverage of natural language variations.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Highly distinctive: it targets the specific niche of final validation phase of a project plan, with a specific output path (`context/plans/{plan_name}.md`) and a clear combination of actions (test suite + lint + scaffolding removal + report writing) that is unlikely to conflict with general testing or linting skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Implementation

100%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-crafted skill that efficiently communicates a multi-step validation workflow with clear sequencing, explicit failure handling paths, and a concrete output format example. It respects Claude's intelligence by naming tools and patterns without explaining them, and the structure makes it easy to follow from trigger conditions through execution to final report output.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is lean and efficient. It doesn't explain what tests or linting are, assumes Claude knows how to discover project tooling, and every section earns its place. The example report entry is appropriately brief while being illustrative.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete tool names and commands (pytest, npm test, ruff --fix, eslint --fix), specific file paths to check for discovery (package.json, pyproject.toml, CI configs), a clear output format with an example report, and explicit instructions for different failure modes.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The checklist is clearly sequenced (test → lint → cleanup → verify context → confirm criteria). Validation/feedback loops are explicit: fix and re-run on fixable failures, escalate on non-trivial failures, auto-fix then re-confirm for lint. Error recovery paths are well-defined.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	For a skill of this size (~60 lines) with no need for external references, the content is well-organized into clear sections (When to use, Validation checklist, If checks fail, Validation report, Example). No bundle files are needed and none are referenced unnecessarily.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation