agent-ops-docker-review

Docker image reviews, optimization, and step-building guidance. Analyzes Dockerfiles for best practices, security issues, and anti-patterns.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

65%

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

The content is highly actionable with executable templates and concrete commands, and is well structured by mode. Its weaknesses are inline bulk that could be externalized into reference files and the absence of explicit validation/feedback loops for the destructive scan/build workflows.

Suggestions

Move the per-language Dockerfile templates and full example reports into separate reference files (e.g. references/templates.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure and conciseness.

Add explicit validation checkpoints and fix-and-retry loops to the Scan and Build procedures, e.g. 'if a scan fails to run, verify the image is built locally and retry'.

Tighten the body by summarizing the Optimize and Scan example outputs rather than reproducing them in full.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body assumes Claude's intelligence (no explanation of what Docker/Dockerfiles are) and uses tables and code efficiently, but embeds full language templates and complete report examples inline that could be tightened or externalized, so it is mostly efficient rather than lean.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully executable Dockerfile templates, concrete scanner commands (e.g. 'trivy image --severity HIGH,CRITICAL {{image}}'), enumerated best-practice rules with IDs, and copy-paste-ready before/after examples.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Each mode has a clear numbered procedure, but workflows touching potentially destructive operations (building images, running scanners) lack explicit validation checkpoints or fix-and-retry feedback loops, which caps workflow clarity at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized and the file is not a wall of text, but no bundle reference files exist and content that could be split out (language templates, full report examples) is kept inline, fitting the 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 specific, distinctive, and well-voiced, clearly conveying the Docker-review niche and concrete actions. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which leaves the 'when to use' guidance only implied and caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing or optimizing Dockerfiles, building Docker images, or when the user mentions Docker, containers, or containerization.'

Broaden trigger terms to include 'container', 'containerize', and 'Docker build' to match natural user phrasings.

Keep the current concrete action list and third-person voice, which are strengths.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Docker image reviews, optimization, and step-building guidance' and 'Analyzes Dockerfiles for best practices, security issues, and anti-patterns' — matching the score-3 anchor for several specific actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does but lacks any 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; per the guidelines a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms like 'Docker', 'Dockerfiles', and 'Docker image', but misses common variations a user might say ('containerize', 'container', 'Docker build'), so coverage is partial rather than complete.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Docker/Dockerfile-specific niche with distinct triggers and correct third-person voice ('Analyzes'), making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Commit: cb3ef45

Reviewed: about 18 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.