This is a well-structured, actionable skill with a clear multi-step workflow and excellent reporting format. Its main weakness is verbosity in the rule injection section (Step 2/2a) which could be tightened, and the lack of references to supporting validator documentation despite referencing multiple named validators. The concrete bash commands, gating logic, and detailed example output report are strong points.

Suggestions

Add references or links to the individual validator skills/files (security, state-machine, go-effective, etc.) to support progressive disclosure and help Claude find detailed validation rules.

Tighten Step 2 by removing multi-platform considerations (OpenCode, 'Other agents') unless this skill is explicitly cross-platform — focus on the primary agent platform to save tokens.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., explaining what --diff-filter flags mean, explaining de-duplication). The rule injection section (Step 2) is quite verbose with multi-platform considerations that could be tightened. However, most content is actionable and relevant.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable bash commands for each step, specific validator names to run, clear file patterns for language detection, and a complete example output report. The guidance is specific enough to be directly followed.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (Step 3 linting gates further progress: 'If linters fail, report and stop - fix these first'). The workflow includes precedence rules for conflict resolution, parallel execution guidance for Step 4, and a structured aggregation/reporting step with severity classification.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with clear sections and steps, but it's a fairly long monolithic document. References to validators (security, state-machine, go-effective, etc.) suggest external tools/files exist but no bundle files are provided and no explicit links to validator documentation are given. The rule injection details could potentially be split out.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

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

This description is too vague and generic to effectively differentiate itself from other skills. It fails to specify what kind of changes are reviewed, what validators are run, or when Claude should select this skill. The lack of concrete actions, natural trigger terms, and explicit usage guidance makes it a poor candidate for skill selection in a multi-skill environment.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger terms like 'validate my changes', 'run checks before commit', 'check code quality', or 'pre-commit validation'.

Specify what validators are run (e.g., linters, type checkers, unit tests, formatting checks) and what 'recent changes' means (e.g., uncommitted changes, last commit, PR diff).

Clarify the output format of the status report and distinguish this skill from general testing or CI/CD skills by naming its unique scope.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names some actions ('run all validators', 'report status', 'review recent changes') but lacks specifics about what validators are run, what kind of changes are reviewed, or what the status report contains.	2 / 3
Completeness	There is a weak 'what' (run validators and report status) but no explicit 'when' clause. The description lacks a 'Use when...' statement, and per the rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 2, but the 'what' is also quite weak, warranting a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The terms 'recent changes', 'validators', and 'report status' are vague and not naturally what users would say. Missing concrete trigger terms like 'lint', 'test', 'CI', 'check', 'validate code', 'run checks', etc.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Review recent changes' and 'run all validators' are extremely generic and could overlap with code review skills, CI/CD skills, testing skills, linting skills, or any validation-related skill.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 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

17 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation