| name | skill-quality-analyzer |
| description | Analyze the quality of a Claude Code skill across discovery, structure, safety, examples, and maintainability. |
Skill Quality Analyzer
Static analysis system for Claude Code skills. Identifies quality issues, scores the skill across six dimensions, and produces actionable recommendations before distribution.
Workflow
- Gather hard facts.
- Does
SKILL.md exist?
- Are
name and description present?
- Are referenced
references/, scripts/, and assets/ files real?
- Are behavior flags intentional?
- If the skill declares or implies an upstream baseline, does the local file clearly differentiate upstream guidance from local adaptations?
- Read the target skill semantically.
- Is the promise clear?
- Is the scope differentiated?
- Is the workflow executable?
- If a vendored upstream reference exists, does the local skill still track it where it should?
- Synthesize a severity-ranked report.
If analyzer.py exists in this skill's directory, run it as the hard-metrics step:
python3 skills/skill-quality-analyzer/analyzer.py --skill-path /path/to/skill
Output Formats
Score Card
{
"overall_score": 85,
"dimensions": {
"discovery_surface": 90,
"structure": 85,
"examples_evals": 80,
"execution_safety": 80,
"best_practices": 85,
"maintainability": 90
}
}
Report
Include:
- executive summary
- dimension breakdown
- severity-ranked issues
- prioritized recommendations
Six Quality Dimensions
1. Discovery Surface (20%)
What it measures:
- distinct
name
- clear
description
- low overlap with neighboring skills
2. Structure (20%)
What it measures:
- valid frontmatter
- coherent section layout
- clean markdown structure
3. Examples / Evals (15%)
What it measures:
- positive examples
- negative or redirect examples
- borderline examples
- realistic prompt coverage
4. Execution Safety (15%)
What it measures:
disable-model-invocation is correct
user-invocable is correct
allowed-tools is justified
- model/agent/context choices make sense
5. Best Practices (15%)
What it measures:
- Claude Code naming conventions
- proper package layout
- no misleading platform branding
- OMC-only metadata clearly treated as project-specific
- upstream-derived skills clearly identify what is baseline versus local adaptation
6. Maintainability (15%)
What it measures:
- modular skill package
- low clutter
- references split before the skill becomes hard to scan
- sustainable file organization
How to Use
Basic
Analyze the quality of my skill-creator skill
Run quality analysis on skills/skill-debugger/
Detailed
Generate a detailed quality report for skill-tester
Compare skill-creator and skill-debugger against current best practices
Batch
Analyze all skills in skills/ and rank them by quality
Recommended Pipeline
skill-creator
skill-quality-analyzer
skill-debugger
skill-tester
Best Practices
- Analyze before distribution
- Target 80+ for production skills
- Fix critical issues first
- Compare against current official examples, not only local tradition
- For upstream-derived skills, compare against the vendored upstream baseline before scoring local adaptations
- Re-run after meaningful edits
Limitations
- Static analysis cannot prove routing behavior
- Prompt-level behavior still needs
skill-tester
- Human judgment is still required for overlap and scope
When NOT to Use This Skill
- For root-cause analysis of why a skill is not selected, use
skill-debugger
- For prompt-level verification, use
skill-tester
- For first-draft authoring or upgrades, use
skill-creator