heal-skill

name	heal-skill
description	Fix incorrect SKILL.md files when a skill has wrong instructions or outdated API references.
role	quality-gate
argument-hint	[optional: specific issue to fix]
allowed-tools	["Read","Edit","Bash(ls:*)","Bash(git:*)"]
disable-model-invocation	true

Owner Paths

• Skill authoring + repair contract owner: skills/skill-author/SKILL.md.
• Skill design gate (read before any SKILL.md edit): skills/skill-author/references/skill-design-decision-runbook.md.

heal-skill applies in-context instruction repairs discovered during a skill's own execution. It does not own the heal/repair contract — skill-author does. For anything beyond a direct instruction fix (role, shape, owner-path, safety-gate, or reusable-rule change), defer to skill-author.

Objective

Update a skill's SKILL.md and related files based on corrections discovered during execution.

Analyze the conversation to detect which skill is running, reflect on what went wrong, propose specific fixes, get user approval, then apply changes with optional commit.

Context

Skill detection: !ls -1 ./skills/*/SKILL.md | head -5

Quick Start

0. Read the skill design gate — skills/skill-author/references/skill-design-decision-runbook.md before any edit (AGENTS.md hard rule: never heal a SKILL.md without it)
1. Detect skill from conversation context (invocation messages, recent SKILL.md references)
2. Reflect on what went wrong and how you discovered the fix
3. Present proposed changes with before/after diffs
4. Get approval before making any edits
5. Apply changes and optionally commit

Process

Step 0: Read the skill design gate

Read skills/skill-author/references/skill-design-decision-runbook.md before touching any SKILL.md. AGENTS.md hard rule: never author, review, heal, or repair a SKILL.md before reading the runbook. Skipping it leaks copied contracts and multi-workflow drift.

Step 1: Detect skill

Identify the skill from conversation context:

• Look for skill invocation messages
• Check which SKILL.md was recently referenced
• Examine current task context

Set: SKILL_NAME=[skill-name] and SKILL_DIR=./skills/$SKILL_NAME

If unclear, ask the user.

Step 2: Reflection and analysis

Focus on $ARGUMENTS if provided, otherwise analyze broader context.

Determine:

• What was wrong: Quote specific sections from SKILL.md that are incorrect
• Discovery method: Context7, error messages, trial and error, documentation lookup
• Root cause: Outdated API, incorrect parameters, wrong endpoint, missing context
• Scope of impact: Single section or multiple? Related files affected?
• Proposed fix: Which files, which sections, before/after for each

Step 3: Scan affected files

ls -la $SKILL_DIR/
ls -la $SKILL_DIR/references/ 2>/dev/null
ls -la $SKILL_DIR/scripts/ 2>/dev/null

Step 4: Present proposed changes

Present changes in this format:

**Skill being healed:** [skill-name]
**Issue discovered:** [1-2 sentence summary]
**Root cause:** [brief explanation]

**Files to be modified:**
- [ ] SKILL.md
- [ ] references/[file].md
- [ ] scripts/[file].py

**Proposed changes:**

### Change 1: SKILL.md - [Section name]
**Location:** Line [X] in SKILL.md

**Current (incorrect):**

[exact text from current file]

**Corrected:**

[new text]

**Reason:** [why this fixes the issue]

[repeat for each change across all files]

**Impact assessment:**
- Affects: [authentication/API endpoints/parameters/examples/etc.]

**Verification:**
These changes will prevent: [specific error that prompted this]

Step 5: Request approval

Should I apply these changes?

1. Yes, apply and commit all changes
2. Apply but don't commit (let me review first)
3. Revise the changes (I'll provide feedback)
4. Cancel (don't make changes)

Choose (1-4):

Wait for user response. Do not proceed without approval.

Step 6: Apply changes

Only after approval (option 1 or 2):

1. Use Edit tool for each correction across all files
2. Read back modified sections to verify
3. If option 1, commit with structured message showing what was healed
4. Confirm completion with file list

Success Criteria

• Skill correctly detected from conversation context
• All incorrect sections identified with before/after
• User approved changes before application
• All edits applied across SKILL.md and related files
• Changes verified by reading back
• Commit created if user chose option 1
• Completion confirmed with file list

Verification

Before completing:

• Read back each modified section to confirm changes applied
• Ensure cross-file consistency (SKILL.md examples match references/)
• Verify git commit created if option 1 was selected
• Check no unintended files were modified