The skill provides a reasonable overview with a clean arguments table and path setup, but delegates nearly all actionable content to PROTOCOL.md without summarizing the workflow steps. This leaves the SKILL.md body lacking in standalone actionability and workflow clarity. The content would benefit significantly from an inline summary of the protocol steps and validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add a brief inline summary of the protocol steps (Steps 0-4) so the skill body is actionable on its own, even if details remain in PROTOCOL.md.

Include at least one concrete example invocation with expected output format to improve actionability.

Add validation checkpoints or error handling guidance (e.g., what happens if a provider times out, how to verify results) to improve workflow clarity.

Remove the 'Auto-Invocation' section or reduce it to a single line, as it restates information already conveyed by the opening paragraph.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation. The 'Auto-Invocation' section restates what's already implied, and the 'Manual-only flags' explanation is somewhat verbose. The arguments table is clean, but the overall content could be tighter.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides a concrete path setup snippet and a clear arguments table, but the actual protocol is entirely delegated to PROTOCOL.md. The skill body itself doesn't contain executable steps—it's essentially a pointer to another file with minimal standalone guidance.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The multi-step workflow (Steps 0-4, debate mode) is entirely deferred to PROTOCOL.md with no summary of the sequence, no validation checkpoints, and no error recovery guidance in the skill body itself. A reader of this file alone has no idea what the actual steps are.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References PROTOCOL.md for the full protocol, which is appropriate progressive disclosure in principle. However, no bundle files were provided to verify the reference exists, and the skill body lacks even a brief summary of the protocol steps, making the reference feel like a black box rather than a well-signaled pointer.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

22%

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 relies heavily on novel but vague terminology ('craftsmanship council', 'debate mode') without explaining concrete actions or when the skill should be selected. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause and fails to list specific capabilities, making it difficult for Claude to reliably choose this skill from a pool of alternatives.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user wants multiple perspectives on code quality, architecture decisions, or PR reviews.'

Replace vague terms like 'craftsmanship council' with concrete actions, e.g., 'Simulates a panel of reviewers analyzing code for correctness, performance, readability, and security.'

Include natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'code review', 'PR review', 'architecture review', 'design feedback', 'code quality'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague, buzzword-heavy language like 'craftsmanship council' and 'live progress' without listing concrete actions. It mentions 'code review and design questions' but doesn't specify what actions are performed (e.g., analyze diffs, suggest refactors, generate reports).	1 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is vague (a 'council' with 'debate mode') and there is no explicit 'when' clause or trigger guidance. Without a 'Use when...' clause, completeness is capped at 2, and the weak 'what' brings it down to 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Code review' and 'design questions' are natural terms users might say, but 'multi-LLM craftsmanship council' and 'debate mode' are not terms users would naturally use when seeking help. Missing common variations like 'PR review', 'architecture', 'refactor'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Code review and design questions' could overlap with general code review or architecture skills. The 'multi-LLM council' and 'debate mode' concepts add some distinctiveness, but the vague framing makes it unclear exactly what niche this fills versus a standard code review skill.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 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