This is a well-structured security validation skill with clear, actionable steps, a well-defined scope, and a precise output schema. The workflow is logical and handles edge cases. Minor verbosity in the 'Why HARD/SHOULD' explanations could be trimmed since Claude understands security severity rationale inherently.

Suggestions

Remove the 'Why HARD:' and 'Justification:' explanation lines under each violation category — Claude already understands why these are security concerns, and this would save ~8 lines of tokens.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanations like 'Why HARD: Secrets in code get leaked via version control' and similar rationale lines that Claude already understands. The scope declaration's 'MUST NOT report on' section is useful for bounding but adds some bulk.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable git commands for getting changes, specific vulnerability patterns to check with concrete examples (e.g., string concatenation in SQL queries, `../../../etc/passwd`), and a complete JSON output schema that is copy-paste ready.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear three-step sequence (get changes → check vulnerabilities → report) with explicit handling for edge cases (50+ files batching, fallback git commands). The pass/fail criteria are explicit, and the severity classification (HARD/SHOULD/WARN) provides clear decision logic.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	For a standalone skill with no bundle files, the content is well-organized with clear sections and headers. The severity tiers (HARD/SHOULD/WARN) provide natural progressive structure. The skill is under 120 lines and doesn't need external references.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

32%

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 is too terse—it conveys the general purpose but lacks specific actions, explicit trigger guidance, and natural keyword variations. It would benefit significantly from listing concrete vulnerability types it checks for and adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'security review', 'vulnerability check', 'code audit', 'PR security scan', 'diff review for security'.

List specific concrete actions such as 'detect injection flaws, flag hardcoded secrets, identify insecure dependencies, check for authentication bypasses'.

Include file/context triggers like 'when reviewing pull requests, diffs, or staged changes for security issues'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (security) and one action (check code changes for vulnerabilities), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like identifying injection flaws, detecting hardcoded secrets, flagging insecure dependencies, etc.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (check code changes for security vulnerabilities) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, placing this at a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant keywords like 'security vulnerabilities' and 'code changes', but misses common variations users might say such as 'security review', 'code audit', 'vulnerability scan', 'CVE', 'SAST', 'diff review', or 'pull request security'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Somewhat specific to security review of code changes, but could overlap with general code review skills, linting skills, or broader security analysis skills. The scope of 'code changes' vs full codebase is somewhat distinctive but not sharply delineated.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 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