The description provides a basic understanding of the skill's purpose but is too terse and lacks explicit trigger guidance. It fails to specify what types of validators are run, what 'recent changes' means (git commits? file modifications?), and critically omits when Claude should choose this skill over others.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks to validate code, check recent commits, run linters, or verify changes before committing'

Specify what validators are included (e.g., 'Runs linters, type checkers, and tests on staged or recent git changes')

Include natural trigger terms users would say: 'lint', 'check', 'test', 'validate', 'CI', 'pre-commit'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a domain (reviewing changes) and some actions (run validators, report status), but lacks comprehensive detail about what validators are run or what 'status' means concretely.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (run validators, report status) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant terms like 'review', 'changes', and 'validators', but misses common variations users might say like 'check my code', 'validate', 'lint', 'test', or 'CI'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Recent changes' and 'validators' provide some specificity, but 'review' is generic and could overlap with code review, PR review, or other validation-related skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

77%

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-structured, actionable skill with clear workflow sequencing and explicit validation checkpoints. The main weakness is moderate verbosity in explanations that Claude doesn't need (like explaining git diff flags or that validators have built-in rules). The skill excels at providing concrete, executable guidance with proper error handling and precedence rules.

Suggestions

Remove explanatory comments like 'The --diff-filter=ACMRT includes Added, Copied, Modified...' - Claude knows git flags

Condense the 'If no rule files are found' explanation - a single line noting to proceed with defaults is sufficient

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., explaining what --diff-filter flags mean, explaining that validators have built-in rules). The content could be tightened in places while preserving clarity.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable bash commands, specific validator names, concrete examples of output format, and copy-paste ready code blocks. Clear instructions for each step with specific tool references.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Excellent multi-step workflow with clear sequencing (Steps 1-5), explicit validation checkpoints ('If linters fail, report and stop'), feedback loops for rule conflicts, and clear precedence rules. The workflow handles edge cases explicitly.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-structured with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. The detailed output example and multiple validator configurations could potentially be split into reference files, though the current organization is functional.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Reviewed

2 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation