The description is too brief and lacks the explicit trigger guidance required for Claude to reliably select this skill. While it mentions validators and code changes, it doesn't explain what types of validation, what the outputs are, or when this skill should be chosen over related code quality tools.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'validate code', 'run checks', 'lint', 'pre-commit', or 'check recent changes'

Specify what types of validators are run (e.g., linters, type checkers, formatters, security scanners) and what outputs to expect

Clarify the scope of 'recent code changes' - does this mean staged changes, last commit, or uncommitted work?

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a domain (validators, code changes) and one action (run validators), but lacks detail on what validators do, what types of validation occur, or what outputs are produced.	2 / 3
Completeness	Only addresses 'what' at a basic level. Missing any 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which per rubric caps this at 2, but the 'what' is also weak, warranting a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant terms ('validators', 'code changes') but misses common variations users might say like 'lint', 'check code', 'validate', 'run checks', 'CI', 'pre-commit', or 'static analysis'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Validators' and 'code changes' are somewhat specific but could overlap with linting skills, testing skills, CI/CD skills, or code review skills without clearer boundaries.	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 orchestration skill with clear, actionable steps and good workflow clarity. The main weakness is some verbosity in the validator selection examples which repeat similar patterns for each language. The output format template is comprehensive and the verdict criteria are explicit.

Suggestions

Condense the language-specific validator lists into a single table mapping file extensions to validators, rather than repeating the full Task list for each language

Consider extracting the detailed markdown output template to a separate reference file to reduce the main skill's length

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is mostly efficient but includes some redundancy, particularly in Step 2 where the validator lists for each language type repeat similar patterns. The example Task prompts and language-specific lists could be condensed.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable bash commands, specific Task tool invocation patterns, concrete validator mappings by file extension, and a complete markdown output template. Claude can follow this directly.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear 4-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints. The workflow progresses logically from detecting changes → selecting validators → running in parallel → aggregating results → verdict. The verdict step provides clear pass/fail criteria.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-structured with clear sections, but everything is inline in a single file. The detailed output format template and language-specific validator lists could potentially be referenced from separate files for better organization.	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