uinaf/skill-audit
Audit existing skills with Tessl scoring, metadata and trigger-coverage checks, repo conventions, and skill-authoring best practices. Use when creating or revising a skill, triaging weak self-activation, or comparing a skill against source-repo guidance such as `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, or repo rules, plus external skill guidance. Do not use to verify general application code or to rewrite unrelated docs.
97
97%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.07xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong, well-crafted description that clearly defines a specific niche (skill auditing), lists concrete actions, provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use' clauses, and includes natural trigger terms. The negative boundary ('Do not use to verify general application code or to rewrite unrelated docs') is a particularly effective addition for disambiguation. The description uses proper third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Tessl scoring', 'metadata and trigger-coverage checks', 'repo conventions', and 'skill-authoring best practices'. These are concrete, identifiable audit activities rather than vague language. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (audit skills with scoring, metadata checks, conventions, best practices) and 'when' (creating/revising skills, triaging weak self-activation, comparing against repo guidance). Also includes explicit 'Do not use' guidance, which strengthens the 'when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'creating or revising a skill', 'weak self-activation', 'AGENTS.md', 'CLAUDE.md', 'repo rules', 'skill guidance'. Also includes negative triggers ('Do not use to verify general application code') which help with disambiguation. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — auditing skills specifically with Tessl scoring and skill-authoring conventions. The explicit 'Do not use' clause further reduces conflict risk with general code review or documentation skills. Unlikely to be confused with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted skill that follows its own advice: it's lean, actionable, and clearly structured. The workflow is logically sequenced with validation checkpoints (Tessl scoring before and after edits), and the output format is well-defined. The main weakness is that bundle files (scorecard.md, best-practices.md) are referenced but not provided for evaluation, making it impossible to fully assess progressive disclosure quality.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and efficient throughout. It assumes Claude's competence, avoids explaining what skills or audits are, and every section earns its place with actionable guidance rather than filler. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete CLI commands (npx tessl skill review --json, --optimize flags), specific file paths to check, concrete examples of weak vs strong metadata, explicit failure signs to look for, and a structured output format. Guidance is specific and directly executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering (run Tessl first, then audit discovery, then shape, then disclosure, then repo fit, then synthesize). It includes validation loops (rerun Tessl after edits), clear 'done' criteria in the output section, and feedback loops for error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to scorecard.md and best-practices.md are well-signaled and one level deep, which is good. However, since no bundle files were provided, we cannot verify these references exist. The handoffs section nicely defers to other skills. Some inline content (like the audit dimensions in steps 2-5) could potentially be moved to references, but it's borderline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents