This is a well-structured validator skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The 5-step process is clearly defined with concrete commands, specific code patterns to detect, and a precise JSON output schema. The main weakness is moderate verbosity—the explanatory notes ('Why HARD', 'Justification') and the inline canonical proverbs list add bulk that could be trimmed or externalized.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Why HARD' and 'Justification' explanations from each proverb entry—Claude can infer why data races are bad or why unwrapped errors are problematic.

Consider moving the canonical proverbs fallback list to a separate reference file to reduce the main skill's token footprint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation. The 'Why HARD' justifications and 'Justification' notes for SHOULD violations add moderate value but could be trimmed. The scope declaration section explaining what NOT to check is useful for a validator but somewhat verbose. The canonical proverbs fallback list adds bulk but serves a clear purpose.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides fully executable bash commands for getting changes, concrete code patterns to look for (e.g., `if err != nil { return err }`), specific suggestions (e.g., `fmt.Errorf("failed to process user: %w", err)`), and a complete JSON output schema with example values. Every step has concrete, actionable guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering (get changes → get proverbs → read files → check → report). It includes fallback mechanisms (git diff ordering, offline proverbs list), batch processing guidance for large changesets, and a clear pass/fail criterion. The validation is inherent in the structured output format.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but it's a long monolithic file (~150 lines of content) with no references to external files. The canonical proverbs list and detailed violation descriptions could be split into separate reference files. However, for a standalone skill with no bundle, keeping everything inline is reasonable.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

40%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description identifies a clear and distinctive niche—validating Go code against Go Proverbs—but is too terse to be effective for skill selection. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause, provides only a single vague action, and misses common trigger terms users might naturally use like 'golang', 'idiomatic', or 'code review'.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when reviewing Go code for adherence to Go Proverbs, idiomatic Go patterns, or when the user asks about Go best practices.'

Include natural keyword variations such as 'golang', 'idiomatic Go', 'Go best practices', 'code review', and 'Go style'.

Expand the capability description with more specific actions, e.g., 'Checks Go code changes against Go Proverbs principles, flags non-idiomatic patterns, and suggests improvements aligned with Go philosophy.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Go code) and a single action (validate against Go Proverbs), but does not list multiple concrete actions or elaborate on what validation entails.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (validate Go code against Go Proverbs) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also thin, so this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'Go code', 'Go Proverbs', and 'validate', but misses common variations users might say such as 'golang', 'code review', 'idiomatic Go', 'best practices', or 'proverbs check'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'Go Proverbs' and 'validate Go code changes' is a very specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. Go Proverbs is a distinct concept that clearly differentiates this from general Go linting or code review skills.	3 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

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 — 9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	9 / 11 Passed

Reviewed

20 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation