Validation
81%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md line count is 88 (<= 500) | Pass |
frontmatter_valid | YAML frontmatter is valid | Pass |
name_field | 'name' field is valid: 'using-superpowers' | Pass |
description_field | 'description' field is valid (159 chars) | Pass |
description_voice | 'description' uses third person voice | Pass |
description_trigger_hint | Description includes an explicit trigger hint | Pass |
compatibility_field | 'compatibility' field not present (optional) | Pass |
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' field not present (optional) | Pass |
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' field not present (optional) | Pass |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | No unknown frontmatter keys found | Pass |
body_present | SKILL.md body is present | Pass |
body_examples | Examples detected (code fence or 'Example' wording) | Pass |
body_output_format | No obvious output/return/format terms detected; consider specifying expected outputs | Warning |
body_steps | Step-by-step structure detected (ordered list) | Pass |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed |
Implementation
77%This is a well-structured meta-skill that clearly instructs Claude on when and how to use skills. Its strengths are the explicit decision criteria, comprehensive red flags table, and clear workflow diagram. The main weakness is some verbosity in the EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT block and the extensive red flags table, though the repetition may be intentional for emphasis given the critical nature of skill invocation.
Suggestions
- Consider condensing the EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT block - the triple repetition of 'must invoke' could be reduced to a single emphatic statement
- The dot graph could be replaced with a simpler numbered list or inline flow description to save tokens while maintaining clarity
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is mostly efficient but includes some redundancy - the 'Red Flags' table is extensive and the EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT block repeats the core message multiple times. The dot graph notation adds tokens for a simple flow. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance: exact tool name (Skill tool), clear decision criteria (1% threshold), specific thought patterns to recognize, and explicit priority ordering. The table format makes red flags immediately actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence with explicit decision points: receive message → check if skill applies → invoke → announce → check for checklist → follow skill → respond. The dot graph provides unambiguous flow, and skill priority section handles multi-skill scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections (The Rule, Red Flags, Skill Priority, Skill Types), but everything is inline in one file. For a meta-skill about skill usage, this is acceptable, though the Red Flags table could potentially be a separate reference. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Activation
17%This description is problematic because it describes a meta-skill for skill discovery rather than a task-oriented capability. It lacks concrete actions, natural user keywords, and is so broad ('any conversation') that it would conflict with all other skills. The technical jargon ('Skill tool invocation') further reduces usability.
Suggestions
- Replace abstract language with specific actions this skill performs, e.g., 'Lists available skills, searches skill catalog, recommends appropriate skills for tasks'
- Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'what can you do', 'help me find', 'available tools', 'capabilities'
- Narrow the scope from 'any conversation' to specific scenarios like 'Use when user asks about available capabilities, requests help finding the right tool, or is unsure which skill to use'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague language like 'establishes how to find and use skills' without listing any concrete actions. It describes a meta-process rather than specific capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'when' clause ('Use when starting any conversation') but the 'what' is weak and abstract. The description explains when to use it but not what concrete value it provides. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains no natural keywords users would say. Terms like 'Skill tool invocation' are technical jargon, and 'starting any conversation' is overly generic rather than a natural user trigger. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Starting any conversation' is extremely broad and would conflict with virtually every other skill. This lacks any clear niche or distinct triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
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.