conductor-validator

tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill conductor-validator

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

59%

Overall

Validation — 69%

Implementation — 38%

Activation — 75%

SKILL.md

Review

Evals

Validation

69%

Warnings & errors only

Criteria	Description	Result
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
license_field	'license' field is missing	Warning
body_output_format	No obvious output/return/format terms detected; consider specifying expected outputs	Warning
body_steps	No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow	Warning

	Total	11 / 16 Passed

Implementation

38%

This skill provides some useful concrete elements (shell commands, pattern examples) but suffers from poor organization and lack of workflow clarity. The validation purpose is undermined by not explaining what constitutes valid vs invalid states, and the Instructions section is too generic to be actionable. Template artifacts ('check if conductor directory exists' repeated verbatim) suggest incomplete customization.

Suggestions

Define a clear validation workflow: 1) Check directory exists, 2) Verify required files, 3) Validate file contents/patterns, 4) Report results - with explicit pass/fail criteria at each step

Replace the generic Instructions section with specific validation logic: what to check, expected values, and remediation steps when validation fails

Fix the template artifacts in 'Use this skill when' sections - replace 'check if conductor directory exists' with meaningful use cases like 'after initial project setup' or 'when debugging missing context errors'

Move the shell commands under a clearly labeled section (e.g., '## Directory Structure Checks') and add expected output or success criteria

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill has some unnecessary repetition (the 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections repeat 'check if conductor directory exists' verbatim which appears to be a template error). The shell commands and pattern matching sections are reasonably lean.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete shell commands for checking directories and files, and shows specific pattern examples for status markers. However, the 'Instructions' section is vague ('Clarify goals, constraints...') and doesn't provide executable validation logic or what to do when checks fail.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	No clear sequence or workflow is defined. The shell commands are listed without context of order, what constitutes success/failure, or what to do next. For a validation skill, missing explicit validation checkpoints and error handling is a significant gap.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' for detailed examples, which is appropriate one-level-deep linking. However, the main content organization is poor - shell commands appear before the 'Instructions' section, and the structure feels disjointed.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Activation

75%

This is a solid description with clear 'when' triggers and good distinctiveness for the Conductor ecosystem. The main weaknesses are moderate specificity (what exactly gets validated?) and trigger terms that could better match natural user language when encountering problems.

Suggestions

Add specific artifacts being validated (e.g., 'config files, dependencies, schemas') to improve specificity

Include natural problem-oriented trigger terms users might say like 'check my setup', 'debug', 'something's broken', or 'configuration issues'

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, validates schema'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what (validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, correctness) and when (after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation) with explicit trigger scenarios.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant terms like 'validates', 'diagnosing issues', 'verify project context', but lacks natural user phrases like 'check my setup', 'something's wrong', 'debug', or 'configuration problems'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Highly specific to 'Conductor project artifacts' which creates a clear niche. The combination of validation focus and Conductor-specific context makes it unlikely to conflict with general validation or other project tools.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Reviewed

15 days ago

Table of Contents

Validation Implementation Activation

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.