conductor-validator

Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness. Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation to verify project context.

1.39x

Quality

52%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

1.39x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/conductor-validator/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is conductor-validator in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

37%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides some concrete shell commands and pattern examples but lacks a coherent validation workflow. The Instructions section is generic boilerplate rather than actionable validation steps. For a skill focused on 'validating artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness,' it critically lacks expected outputs, pass/fail criteria, and error recovery guidance.

Suggestions

Define a clear numbered validation workflow: 1) Check structure exists, 2) Verify required files, 3) Validate content patterns, with expected outputs and what to do if validation fails

Replace generic Instructions section with specific validation criteria - what makes a conductor project 'complete' vs 'incomplete'?

Add expected output examples for the shell commands so Claude knows what success/failure looks like

Remove boilerplate 'Use this skill when' sections that repeat the skill name without adding value

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill has some redundancy - the 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections are boilerplate that don't add value. The shell commands are lean, but the instructions section is generic filler rather than specific guidance.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete shell commands for checking directory structure, but the Instructions section is vague ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs') rather than specific validation steps. Pattern matching examples are concrete but disconnected from a validation workflow.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	No clear validation workflow is defined. Shell commands are listed without sequence, expected outputs, or what to do if checks fail. For a validation skill, missing feedback loops and error handling is a significant gap.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References implementation-playbook.md for detailed examples, which is appropriate one-level-deep disclosure. However, the main content organization is poor - pattern matching examples appear disconnected from the validation purpose, and there's no clear overview structure.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

67%Scale 1-3

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 adequately covers when to use the skill with explicit trigger scenarios, which is a strength. However, it lacks specific concrete actions (what exactly gets validated) and could benefit from more natural user-facing trigger terms. The Conductor-specific focus helps with distinctiveness but the validation actions remain abstract.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions like 'checks configuration files, verifies dependency versions, validates project structure'

Include more natural trigger terms users might say such as 'check my project', 'something's broken', 'troubleshoot', or 'debug setup'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Conductor project artifacts) and general action (validates for completeness, consistency, correctness), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'checks config files', 'verifies dependencies', or 'validates schema'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what (validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, correctness) and when (after setup, when diagnosing issues, before implementation) with explicit trigger scenarios.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant terms like 'validates', 'diagnosing issues', 'setup', and 'verify', but missing natural user phrases like 'check my project', 'something's wrong', 'debug', or 'troubleshoot'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Specific to 'Conductor project artifacts' which provides some distinction, but 'validates' and 'diagnosing issues' could overlap with general debugging or linting skills without more specific triggers.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/conductor-validator/SKILL.md
Commit: 7520423

Reviewed: ~15 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.