validate-contribution

Validate geographic data contributions against the CSC database schema. Use this skill whenever you encounter a PR that adds, modifies, or deletes data in the contributions/ directory. Trigger on: validate, check, review, verify, audit, inspect, or assess any data contribution, PR review requests, schema compliance checks, field validation, or when someone says "is this correct", "check my data", "validate this", or "review my PR". Also use when asked about required fields, allowed values, or data format rules. Read schema-rules.md in this directory for the complete field specification.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/validate-contribution/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The content is a well-sequenced, concrete validation workflow with a clear output checklist, scoring well on conciseness, actionability, and workflow clarity. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: the authoritative schema-rules.md it repeatedly points to is missing from the bundle, and field rules are duplicated inline rather than cleanly separated.

Suggestions

Provide the missing schema-rules.md file (or remove the references to it) so the repeatedly-cited authoritative reference actually exists in the skill bundle.

Remove the inlined required-field and field-format lists (Steps 3–4) once they live in schema-rules.md, or stop presenting schema-rules.md as authoritative while keeping the inline rules — avoid maintaining both.

Specify where countries.json and states.json are loaded from and how country geographic bounds should be determined, so the cross-reference and coordinate-plausibility steps are fully executable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and rule-focused without over-explaining known concepts, but it duplicates the schema-rules.md reference twice and inlines field rules that it simultaneously defers to as authoritative — minor padding that could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete, executable validation rules (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, latitude −90..90, longitude −180..180, Q+digits wikiDataId, 5km duplicate check) and an output template, with minor gaps such as unspecified file paths for countries.json/states.json and no method for determining country bounds.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Seven explicitly ordered steps plus a PASS/FAIL/WARN output checklist give a clear sequenced workflow; because the skill only reports rather than mutates data the destructive/batch cap does not apply, but it lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is reasonable and the one-level reference to schema-rules.md is clearly signaled, but that referenced file does not exist in the bundle (broken navigation) and the field rules are duplicated inline despite being declared authoritative, matching the some-structure / content-should-be-separate anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 strong: it clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with a rich set of natural trigger phrases and a specific niche. Its only weakness is reliance on broad generic verbs for triggers, which slightly raises conflict risk, and a single named action limiting specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (geographic data contributions, CSC database schema) and one concrete action ("Validate ... against the CSC database schema"), but does not enumerate several distinct actions; the remaining listed verbs are trigger synonyms rather than separate capabilities.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ("Validate geographic data contributions against the CSC database schema") and when ("Use this skill whenever you encounter a PR that adds, modifies, or deletes data in the contributions/ directory") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It covers comprehensive natural synonyms and phrases users would actually say — validate/check/review/verify/audit/inspect/assess plus "check my data", "validate this", and "review my PR" — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The CSC geographic-contributions niche and contributions/ directory constraint make it mostly distinct, but the very generic trigger verbs (validate, check, review, verify, audit) create minor overlap risk with unrelated validation skills, so it sits just below the minimal-conflict anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: dr5hn/countries-states-cities-database
Path: .github/skills/validate-contribution/SKILL.md
Commit: b3b4925

Reviewed: 15 days 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.