| name | review-skill |
| description | Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise authors on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent Skill. |
| compatibility | Requires skill-validator CLI. LLM scoring requires an Anthropic or OpenAI API key, the Claude CLI, OR can be skipped for structural-only review. |
| metadata | {"author":"agent-ecosystem","version":"1.0"} |
Review Skill Workflow
You are helping a skill author review an Agent Skill before publishing. This is
a multi-step process: determine environment, verify prerequisites, run
structural validation, review content, optionally run LLM scoring, and
interpret results. Follow every step in order.
Step 0: Determine Environment
Check for saved configuration:
cat ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml 2>/dev/null
If the state file exists with prereqs_passed: true, offer:
Found saved settings — configured for [provider/structural-only] reviews.
- Continue with saved settings — skip to Step 2
- Re-run prerequisite checks
- Change environment — switch provider or between LLM and structural-only
Option 1: read llm_scoring, provider, and cross_model from the file and
skip to Step 2.
Options 2-3: continue below.
If no state file exists, or the user chose to re-check/change, ask:
LLM scoring uses an Anthropic or OpenAI-compatible API, or the Claude CLI.
Without an API key or CLI, we run structural validation only.
- Anthropic — use Claude via the Anthropic API (requires
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY)
- OpenAI — use GPT via the OpenAI API (requires
OPENAI_API_KEY)
- OpenAI-compatible — use a custom endpoint (Ollama, Groq, Azure, Together, etc.)
- Claude CLI — use the locally authenticated
claude binary (no API key needed)
- Skip LLM scoring — structural validation only
Options 1-4: set LLM_SCORING=true and record the provider choice.
Option 5: set LLM_SCORING=false. Run Step 1a only, then jump to Step 2.
If the user chose option 1 or 2, ask about cross-model comparison:
Scoring with a second model family gives more robust novelty scores, since
each model has different training data. This requires API keys for both
Anthropic and OpenAI.
- Yes, compare across model families — score with both Anthropic and OpenAI
- No, single provider is fine
Option 1: set CROSS_MODEL=true. Option 2: set CROSS_MODEL=false.
Do not offer cross-model comparison for option 3 (OpenAI-compatible) or option 4
(Claude CLI), since the second provider would need a standard Anthropic or
OpenAI key.
After Step 1a, follow
references/llm-scoring.md for API key checks
before Step 2.
Step 1: Verify Prerequisites
1a. Check for skill-validator binary
skill-validator --version
If not found, search common locations (/usr/local/bin, /opt/homebrew/bin,
~/go/bin). If found but not on PATH, tell the user. If not found anywhere,
follow references/install-skill-validator.md.
Do NOT proceed until this succeeds.
If LLM_SCORING=true, complete the provider checks in
references/llm-scoring.md before continuing.
Save state after prerequisites pass
Persist state so future runs skip this step. Replace placeholders with actual
values:
mkdir -p ~/.config/skill-validator
cat > ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml << 'EOF'
prereqs_passed: true
llm_scoring: <true or false>
provider: <anthropic, openai, openai-compatible, or claude-cli>
model: <model name if specified, or "default">
base_url: <custom base URL if openai-compatible, or omit>
cross_model: <true or false>
EOF
Step 2: Locate the Skill
Ask the user for the path to the skill they want to review, unless they have
already provided it. Verify the path contains a SKILL.md file:
ls <path>/SKILL.md
If SKILL.md does not exist at the given path, tell the user this is not a
valid skill directory and ask them to provide the correct path.
Step 3: Run Structural Validation
Run the full check suite:
skill-validator check <path>
Capture the exit code:
| Exit code | Meaning |
|---|
| 0 | Clean — no errors or warnings |
| 1 | Errors found — must fix before publishing |
| 2 | Warnings only — review but not blocking |
| 3 | CLI/usage error — check the command |
Exit 0: proceed. Exit 2: note warnings, proceed. Exit 1: list errors — these
are blocking. The user must fix them before the skill can be published. Do NOT
proceed to LLM scoring if exit code is 1.
Step 4: Content Review
Read the SKILL.md and any reference files, then evaluate each check below.
Report which checks pass and which do not, with specific details on what is
missing.
| Check | Criteria |
|---|
| Examples | Does the skill provide examples of expected inputs and outputs? |
| Edge cases | Does the skill document common edge cases or failure modes? |
| Scope-gating | Does the skill define when to stop/continue, prerequisites, and conditions for branching paths? |
Flag any failing checks as areas the author should address. These are not
blocking but should be resolved before publishing for best results.
Step 5: LLM Scoring and Interpretation
If LLM_SCORING=false, skip to Step 6.
If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Run LLM Scoring" and "Interpret LLM Scores"
sections of
references/llm-scoring.md.
Step 6: Present the Review Summary
If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Full Review Summary" section of
references/llm-scoring.md.
Include any failing content review checks from Step 4 in the action items.
If LLM_SCORING=false, present structural result, content review result,
areas to address, and a self-assessment checklist using the scoring dimensions
from assets/report.md. Note that LLM scoring was skipped;
advise re-running with an API key or self-assessing against the report
dimensions.
Example Review Summary Structure
Structure the final summary with these sections in order:
- Structural validation — pass/fail with errors or warnings
- SKILL.md scores — overall and per-dimension table
- Reference scores — per-file table with overall and lowest dimension
- Novelty assessment — mean novelty vs threshold of 3; list
novel_info
per file for author verification
- Action items — prioritized list of what to fix
- Recommendation — ready to publish / minor revisions / significant rework
