checking-skill-quality

name

checking-skill-quality

description

Use when the user says "check this skill", "review this skill", "quality check skill", "audit this skill", "skill quality check", "does this skill follow best practices", or provides a path to a SKILL.md file for review. Also triggers on "check skill quality", "skill review", or "is this skill well-written". Audits a skill file against the AIDB Skills Masterclass best practices framework, checking for the 5 skill killers, proper anatomy, scoping, and context binding.

Checking Skill Quality

Context Required

Read the target SKILL.md file before running. If the skill has a folder with supporting files (templates, examples, scenarios), read those too to assess context binding.

Steps

1. Ask for the skill path if not provided
2. Read the full SKILL.md at that path — do not skim
3. If a skill folder exists, list its contents and read any supporting files
4. Check the frontmatter:
   • Name: lowercase, hyphens only, max 64 chars, gerund form (verb-ing)?
   • Description: starts with "Use when..."? Lists trigger phrases? Written in third person? Loud and specific?
5. Check for the 5 Skill Killers:
   • Killer 1 — Vague/quiet description: Is it specific, loud, third-person, with "Use when..." format and edge-case triggers?
   • Killer 2 — Over-defined process: Is freedom matched to task fragility? Tight for fragile ops, loose for creative?
   • Killer 3 — Stating the obvious: Does every paragraph add signal the model doesn't already know? Challenge each section.
   • Killer 4 — Missing gotcha section: Is there a dedicated Gotcha Section with documented failure patterns specific to this skill?
   • Killer 5 — Monolithic blob: Is the SKILL.md under 500 lines?
6. Check skill anatomy completeness and quality:
   • Steps: numbered list (not prose)?
   • Output: literal template/example shown (not just described)?
   • Gotcha Section: present and substantive — not empty, not generic?
   • Constraints: sharp and specific to this skill (not generic model behavior)?
   • Identity/role section: absent? Flag explicitly if present — "Act as a senior X" is always an anti-pattern
7. Check scoping:
   • Can you describe the skill's job in one sentence?
   • Does it have two distinct triggers suggesting it should be two skills?
   • Would two different people use different halves of it?
8. Check context binding:
   • Are files specific to this skill in the folder?
   • Are shared/org-level references pointed to externally (not duplicated)?
   • Is any context that should be external being embedded inline?
9. Classify the skill type:
   • Capability Uplift: new function the model can't do well alone — note it may become obsolete as models improve
   • Encoded Preference: your workflow for something the model can do — note it gets more valuable over time
10. Generate the audit report per the output format below

Output

Skill Quality Audit: [skill-name]

Type: Capability Uplift / Encoded Preference Overall verdict: SOLID / NEEDS WORK / RED FLAG

---

5 Skill Killers Check

#	Killer	Status	Notes
1	Vague/quiet description	PASS / FAIL	[specifics]
2	Over-defined process	PASS / FAIL	[specifics]
3	Stating the obvious	PASS / FAIL	[specifics]
4	Missing gotcha section	PASS / FAIL	[specifics]
5	Monolithic blob	PASS / FAIL	[line count]

---

Anatomy Check

Section	Present	Quality	Notes
Name (gerund, hyphens, ≤64 chars)	Yes/No	Good/Weak/N/A
Description (trigger, loud, 3rd person)	Yes/No	Good/Weak
Context Required	Yes/No	Good/Weak/N/A
Steps (numbered, not prose)	Yes/No	Good/Weak
Output (literal template shown)	Yes/No	Good/Weak
Gotcha Section (substantive)	Yes/No	Good/Weak
Constraints	Yes/No	Good/Weak/N/A
Identity/role section (should be ABSENT)	Absent/Present	—	Flag if present

---

Scoping

• One clear job: [yes/no + one-sentence description of the job]
• Split candidate: [yes/no + reason if yes]

Context Binding

• In-folder files: [list, or "none"]
• External references: [list, or "none"]
• Misplaced context: [yes/no + specifics if yes]

---

Top Recommended Improvements

1. [Most impactful fix — be specific, not generic]
2. [Second fix]
3. [Third fix, if applicable]

Litmus Test After this skill runs, can the output be used directly — or will it need editing and restructuring? [honest assessment based on how precise the steps and output format are]

---

Gotcha Section

• Do not mark a skill SOLID just because all sections are present — check the QUALITY of each section, not just presence
• A description that lists trigger phrases but is vague about what the skill does still fails Killer 1
• The Gotcha Section is the highest-signal content in any skill — missing or generic gotcha content is always at least NEEDS WORK
• Do not flag prose in Steps as automatic fail if the prose is tight and directive — the problem is prose that hides ambiguity or gives the model too much latitude on fragile operations
• A Capability Uplift skill should be noted as potentially obsolete if a recent model improvement may have addressed the gap it fills
• The litmus test is not rhetorical — actually assess whether the output format and step precision would produce directly usable output
• If supporting files exist but are not referenced in the SKILL.md, flag the disconnect
• Do not skip the scoping check — skills that try to do two jobs are a common failure mode that the rest of the audit misses

Constraints

• Read the entire skill file before issuing any verdict
• Overall verdict rules:
  • RED FLAG: any Killer scores FAIL and the fix is non-trivial, or an identity/role section is present
  • NEEDS WORK: one or more Killers fail but fixes are minor, or anatomy sections are weak
  • SOLID: all 5 Killers pass and anatomy is complete and high-quality
• Do not soften verdicts to be encouraging — the point is to surface real issues
• Flag identity/role sections ("Act as a...") explicitly every time — no exceptions