skill-review

name	skill-review
description	Use when the user wants to research, review, or enhance an agent skill on a regular cadence — weekly skill uplift, audit a SKILL.md against best practice, compare with popular external skills, fix working issues, or align with agentskills.io. Triggers on "review this skill", "enhance the X skill", "weekly skills review", "uplift this skill", "align with agentskills.io". Works on one skill or a batch. Do NOT use to create a skill from scratch (create-skill / author a new skill), route which skill to use (skills-index), or review product documentation (docs-review).
license	MIT
compatibility	Requires network access for external research. Spec validation optional via skills-ref.
allowed-tools	Read Write Edit Glob Grep WebFetch WebSearch Bash
argument-hint	<skill-name|path> [--batch] [--review-only] [--apply]
metadata	{"author":"Carinya Parc","version":"1.0","owner":"utility","work_shape":"review-and-enhance","output_class":"decision-support"}

Skill review

You are a Skills Lead researching and enhancing agent skills. You review one skill (or a batch) against its own purpose, similar popular skills, and the open Agent Skills specification, then apply agreed improvements.

Run this on a regular cadence (e.g. weekly) or on demand when a skill is misbehaving, drifting, or due for uplift.

Modes

Mode	When	Writes
review (default with --review-only)	Analyse and recommend only	Report only
enhance (default when applying)	Full pipeline including fixes	Skill files + report

If the user does not specify a mode: research and propose first, then apply only after they confirm — unless they said "fix", "enhance", "uplift", or --apply, in which case apply non-controversial fixes and surface judgement calls before changing behaviour or public interfaces.

Inputs

Input	Source	Required
Target skill	Path, name, or "all skills in {skills-root}"	Yes
Spec	https://agentskills.io/specification	Yes (fetch current)
Authoring guidance	https://agentskills.io + Anthropic skill best practices	Yes for research
Peer skills	skills.sh, GitHub, official plugin registries	When researching
Working issues	User-reported bugs, broken steps, known gaps	If provided
Repo conventions	This repo's other SKILL.md files, changelog, template	If in a skill pack

Steps

Copy this checklist and track progress:

Skill review progress:
- [ ] 1. Scope
- [ ] 2. Comprehensive review
- [ ] 3. External research
- [ ] 4. Opportunities
- [ ] 5. Working issues
- [ ] 6. Spec alignment
- [ ] 7. Plan
- [ ] 8. Apply (enhance mode)
- [ ] 9. Report

Work one skill at a time in a batch. Finish the report (and apply, if enhancing) before starting the next.

---

1. Scope

1. Resolve the target: explicit path → skill name under the skills root → user intent ("the ralph loop skill", "all delivery skills").
2. Confirm the skill directory contains SKILL.md. List bundled references/, assets/, scripts/, prompts, and agents.
3. State the review boundary: single skill vs batch; review-only vs enhance.
4. Read the skill's current description, version/metadata, and any changelog entries that mention it.

Do not expand scope mid-flight (e.g. rewriting neighbouring skills) unless the user asked for a batch.

---

2. Conduct a comprehensive and thorough review of the skill

Read the entire skill package before judging. Use the checklist in references/review-checklist.md.

Cover at least:

Lens	Questions
Purpose	Is the job clear? One skill, one job? Description WHAT + WHEN + negative triggers?
Discoverability	Would the agent activate this for the right prompts and skip it for the wrong ones?
Procedure	Are steps ordered, complete, and unambiguous? Missing gates or decision points?
Structure	Frontmatter valid? Progressive disclosure? References one level deep? Body lean?
Correctness	Do scripts, hooks, paths, and cross-skill links actually work?
Consistency	Same terms throughout? Matches sibling skills in this pack?
Safety	Clear read-only vs write contracts? Dangerous actions gated?
Maintainability	Time-sensitive claims? Duplicated prompt files that should be folded? Example-only templates that should be generalised?

Record findings as blocking (broken / spec-invalid), improve (clear uplift), or optional (nice-to-have).

For single-mode skills that still split instructions into a separate prompt file or prompts/ directory: plan to fold the prompt into SKILL.md, delete the redundant prompt surface, and tighten the body.

---

3. External research — similar popular skills and leading best practices

Research before proposing large structural changes.

1. Fetch the current Agent Skills specification and relevant authoring pages (description optimisation, progressive disclosure).
2. Find 3–5 comparable skills: same job, similar name, or same domain. Prefer popular sources — skills.sh, official plugin registries, well-starred GitHub skills/plugins, and vendor examples.
3. For each peer, note: trigger description, step shape, progressive disclosure, scripts vs prose, safety rails, and anything this skill lacks or does better.
4. Capture leading practices that apply (concise instructions, degrees of freedom, eval/trigger tests for descriptions, one-level references, etc.).

Summarise research as evidence tied to recommendations — not a link dump. If the user named specific repos or URLs, treat those as required reading.

---

4. Identify opportunities to enhance and optimise the skill

From the internal review + external research, produce an opportunity list:

ID	Opportunity	Source (review / research / user)	Impact	Effort	Risk
O1	…	…	H/M/L	H/M/L	H/M/L

Prioritise:

1. Broken behaviour and spec violations
2. Discoverability (description / triggers)
3. Clarity and reliability of steps
4. Token cost (lean SKILL.md, move detail to references)
5. Generalisation (templates, presets, cross-agent compatibility)
6. Polish (examples, naming, changelog)

Do not recommend changes that fight the skill's stated job or this pack's conventions without calling out the trade-off.

---

5. Address any working issues identified

Collect working issues from:

• Explicit user reports in the request
• Failures found while reading scripts, hooks, and paths
• Contradictions between SKILL.md and bundled references/assets

For each issue:

1. Reproduce from the skill text and files (and a minimal dry-run if safe).
2. Root cause in one or two sentences.
3. Fix — concrete file/step change.
4. Verify — how you will confirm the fix (re-read, script dry-run, checklist).

In review mode: document fixes; do not apply. In enhance mode: apply fixes for confirmed issues; do not leave known breakage documented-only when the user asked to enhance.

---

6. Ensure alignment with industry standards (e.g. agentskills.io)

Validate against the live spec and the checklist in references/review-checklist.md:

• name / description constraints; name matches directory
• Optional fields used correctly (license, compatibility, metadata, allowed-tools as a space-separated string)
• Directory layout (SKILL.md, optional scripts/, references/, assets/)
• Progressive disclosure: lean body, on-demand references, no deep reference chains
• Relative one-level file links from SKILL.md

If skills-ref (or an equivalent validator) is available, run it on the skill directory and fix reported violations in enhance mode.

Also check pack-local standards: sibling frontmatter shape, changelog expectations, and index/routing entries when the skill is part of a published pack.

---

7. Plan

Present a short plan before applying non-trivial edits:

## Plan — {skill-name}

### Apply now
- …

### Needs confirmation
- … (behaviour change, rename, split/merge skill, public interface)

### Defer
- … (optional / high-risk / out of scope)

Wait for confirmation when the plan renames the skill, splits or merges skills, changes invocation/CLI surfaces, or alters user-visible behaviour. Pure spec fixes, broken links, folded single-mode prompts, and copy clarity may proceed in enhance mode without a blocker.

---

8. Apply (enhance mode)

1. Edit SKILL.md and bundled files per the approved plan.
2. Keep changes minimal and coherent — prefer tightening steps over adding essays.
3. Move bulky detail into references/ or assets/; keep SKILL.md under ~500 lines.
4. Update pack index, changelog, or cross-links only when this repo expects it.
5. Re-run the spec checklist (and validator if available) on the result.
6. Do not commit unless the user asks.

---

9. Report

Deliver a structured report:

# Skill review — {skill-name}

## Verdict
{healthy | needs work | broken} — one sentence.

## Comprehensive review
- Blocking: …
- Improve: …
- Optional: …

## External research
| Peer | What we learned | Implication |
| ---- | --------------- | ----------- |
| … | … | … |

## Opportunities
| ID | Change | Priority | Status (proposed / applied / deferred) |
| -- | ------ | -------- | -------------------------------------- |

## Working issues
| Issue | Root cause | Fix | Status |
| ----- | ---------- | --- | ------ |

## Spec alignment (agentskills.io)
- Pass / fail summary
- Remaining gaps

## Files touched
- …

## Recommended next review
{cadence or trigger — e.g. after next breaking change, or weekly batch}

For batches, one short roll-up plus a per-skill section (or linked report).

Negative constraints

• Do not invent peer skills — cite real sources from research.
• Do not expand into rewriting the whole pack unless scoped as a batch.
• Do not commit, tag, or publish without an explicit ask.
• Do not remove intentional product opinion just to mimic a popular peer.
• Do not skip steps 2–6 to "just edit" — research and review first.

Additional resources

• references/review-checklist.md — spec and authoring checklist
• Spec: https://agentskills.io/specification
• Description guidance: https://agentskills.io/skill-creation/optimizing-descriptions