Audit Skill Completeness

If the user's intent does not match the purpose of this skill, load plugin-lifecycle to route to the right skill and process: Skill(skill="plugin-creator:plugin-lifecycle").

Audit Skill Completeness

Core Principle

The primary evaluation question is: "Does this skill have everything it needs to achieve its stated purpose reliably?"

Scripts, references, and assets are extension patterns — each is warranted when the skill's purpose calls for it and unnecessary when it does not. Their absence is only a gap when the purpose requires them. A small, complete, purpose-aligned skill scores as complete; a skill with unused scripts and padding scores lower than one with clear, sufficient instructions.

When to Use

• Pre-marketplace publication review — verify skill meets quality standards
• Post-creation quality check — evaluate newly created skills
• Skill improvement planning — identify specific quality gaps
• Marketplace readiness assessment — determine if skill is publication-ready

Workflow

Step 1: Discovery

Read the skill directory structure:

skill-path/
├── SKILL.md          # Required - main skill definition
├── scripts/          # Optional - executable automation (when warranted)
├── references/       # Optional - supporting documentation (when warranted)
└── assets/           # Optional - reusable output resources (when warranted)

Actions:

1. Verify SKILL.md exists; report error and exit if missing
2. Read SKILL.md frontmatter and body
3. Note any scripts/, references/, assets/ directories and their contents

Step 2: Classify purpose type

Classify the skill into one of these purpose types based on the frontmatter description and body:

If the skill spans multiple types, apply the union of warranted categories.

Step 3: Evaluate agentskills.io best practices (primary)

Apply the best-practice checks from ./references/skill-completeness-checklist.md — section "agentskills.io Best Practice Checks". Rate each PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with evidence from SKILL.md.

For each check: state the verdict, cite specific evidence (file:line where possible), and note what an eval would test.

Step 4: Evaluate structural quality categories (secondary)

The categories below are universal (always scored) or conditional (scored only when warranted by purpose; marked N/A otherwise).

Universal categories:

Conditional categories — apply warranted test first:

For each category:

1. Warrant check (conditional categories only — Scripts, References, Assets):
   • Ask: is this category warranted for this skill's purpose type (from Step 2)?
   • If NO → record N/A. STOP. Do not execute steps 2–5. Do not add to score denominator. Do not list absence as a gap. Do not recommend adding it.
   • If YES → continue to step 2.
   • Universal categories (Preparation, Progression, Verification, Examples, Anti-Patterns) always continue to step 2.
2. Read the category definition from ./references/skill-completeness-checklist.md
3. Review checklist items for that category
4. Search SKILL.md and supporting files for evidence
5. Score 0–3 based on rubric (below)
6. Document findings with file:line references

Step 5: Suggest eval scenarios

You do not have the domain context needed to author high-quality evals. Suggest scenarios that a domain expert can use as starting points.

For each best-practice check rated FAIL or PARTIAL, describe 1–2 prompts that would expose the gap (use the eval-type mapping in ./references/skill-completeness-checklist.md).

Additionally suggest:

• 3–5 behavioral scenarios — prompts where the skill would be active; note what the assertion should check (the agent's approach, not exact output)
• 2–3 should-trigger queries — non-obvious prompts where the skill SHOULD activate (tests description trigger accuracy)
• 2–3 should-not-trigger queries — prompts at the edge of scope where the skill SHOULD NOT activate

Format each as a short paragraph: the prompt idea, what makes it a good test, what a passing response demonstrates. Do NOT write JSON — the skill author needs domain knowledge to fill in the assertions.

Step 6: Score and report

Calculate overall structural score. Denominator = 15 (universal) + 3 × (number of applicable conditional categories).

Write report to .tmp/scratch/reports/skill-sync-{slug}-completeness-YYYYMMDD.md. Create .tmp/scratch/reports/ if it does not exist.

Report Structure:

# Skill Completeness Report: {skill-name}

**Evaluated:** {timestamp}
**Skill Path:** {path}
**Purpose type:** {type}
**Conditional categories applicable:** Scripts={Yes|No}, References={Yes|No}, Assets={Yes|No}

## agentskills.io Best Practice Checks

| Check | Verdict | Evidence |
|-------|---------|----------|
| 1. Approach vs Output | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | {evidence} |
| 2. Lean Instructions | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | {evidence} |
| 3. Reasoning over Directives | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | {evidence} |
| 4. Description Trigger Accuracy | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | {evidence} |
| 5. Bundle Signal | PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL | {evidence} |

## Suggested Eval Scenarios

{Short paragraph per scenario: prompt idea, why it's a good test, what a passing response demonstrates.
Gap-coverage: {N} | Behavioral: {N} | Should-trigger: {N} | Should-not-trigger: {N}}

## Structural Score: {score}/{applicable-max} ({percentage}%)

| Category | Applicable | Score | Label | Findings |
|----------|-----------|-------|-------|----------|
| 1. Preparation | Yes | 2 | Adequate | Environment checks present |
| 2. Progression | Yes | 3 | Exemplary | Clear workflow, decision tree |
| 3. Verification | Yes | 2 | Adequate | Steps defined, no automation |
| 4. Scripts | No | N/A | — | Not warranted for this skill type |
| 5. Examples | Yes | 2 | Adequate | Working examples, common cases covered |
| 6. Anti-Patterns | Yes | 3 | Exemplary | Failure modes with corrections |
| 7. References | No | N/A | — | Not warranted for this skill type |
| 8. Assets | No | N/A | — | Not warranted for this skill type |

## Category Details

### 1. Preparation (2/3 - Adequate)

**Evidence found:**
- ✅ Environment check at SKILL.md:45-50
- ✅ Input validation at SKILL.md:65
- ❌ Missing: {specific gap}

**Recommendation:**
{Concrete recommendation}

### 4. Scripts (N/A — not warranted)

This skill enforces behavior through instructions Claude internalizes. Scripts are not warranted.
No gap. No recommendation.

## Recommendations for Improvement

Only list recommendations for applicable categories with scores below 3, or best-practice checks
rated FAIL:

1. **High Priority:** {recommendation} (Category or Check)
2. **Medium Priority:** {recommendation} (Category or Check)

Output Location: .tmp/scratch/reports/skill-sync-{slug}-completeness-YYYYMMDD.md. Create .tmp/scratch/reports/ if it does not exist.

Scoring Rubric

Each applicable category is scored 0–3:

Universal category guidelines:

• Preparation (0-3):

  • 0: No environment checks, no input validation
  • 1: Environment checks OR input validation present
  • 2: Both environment checks AND input validation present
  • 3: Full prerequisite verification, input inspection, structured pre-flight

• Progression (0-3):

  • 0: No clear workflow defined
  • 1: Workflow mentioned but steps are vague or incomplete
  • 2: Clear step sequence with decision points
  • 3: Clear steps, decision trees, degree-of-freedom calibration appropriate to task fragility

• Verification (0-3):

  • 0: No verification steps mentioned
  • 1: Manual verification suggested but not specified
  • 2: Verification steps defined with acceptance criteria
  • 3: Explicit error-correction loop (verify → fix → re-verify), expressed either as behavioral instructions Claude follows or as automated scripts — either form satisfies this level

• Examples (0-3):

  • 0: No examples provided
  • 1: Abstract descriptions or pseudocode only
  • 2: Concrete examples covering common cases
  • 3: Examples covering common AND edge cases, with exact input→output pairs

• Anti-Patterns (0-3):

  • 0: No anti-patterns documented
  • 1: Anti-patterns mentioned but not demonstrated
  • 2: Anti-patterns shown with corrections
  • 3: Anti-patterns shown with corrections AND reasoning for why the wrong form fails

Conditional category guidelines (only when warranted):

• Scripts (0-3, or N/A):

  • N/A: Skill's purpose does not involve deterministic or repetitive operations that benefit from scripting
  • 0: Operations clearly need scripting (agent would regenerate the same logic each invocation) but no scripts provided
  • 1: Scripts exist but the operations most likely to be regenerated wastefully remain unscripted
  • 2: Scripts cover the operations the agent would otherwise rewrite each run; eliminates the primary sources of wasted agent turns
  • 3: All deterministic operations that the agent would otherwise regenerate are scripted; scripts are self-documenting (--help) and handle edge cases — the agent never writes boilerplate

• References (0-3, or N/A):

  • N/A: Skill's purpose does not require domain knowledge beyond training data
  • 0: Warranted but no reference material bundled
  • 1: External links only — not bundled for offline use
  • 2: Reference files bundled, organized by topic
  • 3: Reference files linked from the specific workflow steps where they're needed

• Assets (0-3, or N/A):

  • N/A: Skill's output does not depend on templates, fonts, images, or boilerplate resources
  • 0: Output clearly requires bundled resources but none provided — agent generates required materials ad-hoc each invocation
  • 1: Some assets bundled but key output resources the agent needs are still generated ad-hoc
  • 2: Main output resources bundled; agent can produce its primary output without generating supporting materials
  • 3: All output resources the agent needs are bundled; agent never generates supporting materials ad-hoc; asset usage is clearly specified

Quality Categories Reference

Detailed checklist items and Anthropic skill examples: ./references/skill-completeness-checklist.md