common-feedback-reporter
Pre-write skill violation audit. Checks planned code against loaded skill anti-patterns before any file write. Use when writing Flutter/Dart code, editing SKILL.md files, or generating any code where project skills are active. Load as composite alongside other skills. When a violation is detected and Auto-fixed: YES, also load +common/common-learning-log to record the mistake.
82
80%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.github/skills/common/common-feedback-reporter/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
75%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 is a reasonably well-crafted description that clearly defines its niche (pre-write skill violation auditing) and provides explicit 'when to use' guidance. Its main weakness is that the trigger terms are more process/system-oriented than natural user language, and the core capability could be described with more concrete actions (e.g., what specific checks it performs, what kinds of anti-patterns it catches). The operational instructions about composite loading and learning log are useful additions.
Suggestions
Add more concrete action verbs describing what the audit does, e.g., 'flags banned patterns, checks naming conventions, validates architecture constraints'
Include more natural trigger terms that a user or system might use, such as 'code review', 'check for violations', 'validate against rules', or 'lint skill compliance'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (skill violation auditing, pre-write checks) and some actions ('checks planned code against loaded skill anti-patterns'), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond the single check. The mention of Flutter/Dart and SKILL.md files adds some specificity, but the core capability description is somewhat singular. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (checks planned code against skill anti-patterns before file writes) and 'when' (when writing Flutter/Dart code, editing SKILL.md files, or generating code where project skills are active). It also includes additional operational guidance about loading as a composite and when to load the learning log. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'Flutter/Dart code', 'SKILL.md files', 'anti-patterns', 'skill violation', and 'code write', but these are more process-oriented than natural user language. Users are unlikely to say 'pre-write skill violation audit' — they'd more likely say 'check my code' or 'review before writing'. The trigger terms are somewhat niche and technical. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | This skill occupies a very clear niche — pre-write auditing of skill anti-patterns — that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The specific mention of checking against loaded skill anti-patterns before file writes is a distinct trigger that wouldn't overlap with general code review or linting skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%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-crafted meta-skill that clearly defines a pre-write audit workflow with concrete detection steps, a structured violation report format, and good progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is minor verbosity in the anti-patterns section and some redundant emphasis formatting, but overall it is highly actionable and well-organized for its purpose as a composite skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but has some redundancy — the anti-patterns section restates things already implied by the workflow, and some formatting (emoji, bold) adds visual noise without information. The root cause table and violation format are dense but justified. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable: provides a concrete detection flow, exact violation report format with all fields specified, specific examples (Flutter color, React class, SKILL.md line count), root cause codes with usage guidance, and clear anti-patterns. Claude knows exactly what to do at each step. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear multi-step sequence with explicit decision points (check extension → audit rules → violation or proceed). Includes a pre-completion catch-all checkpoint to ensure no writes were missed. The flow diagram and numbered steps make the sequence unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with a clear overview, quick reference examples inline, and a reference link to detailed violation examples. Content is appropriately split — the main file stays focused on the workflow and format while pointing to references/violation-examples.md for more. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%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 |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
- Commit
4c72e76
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.