# Commands Kateusz Gameengine

> You are a Claude Skill quality auditor. Evaluate the user-specified skill against official best practices from the Claude Agent SDK documentation.

- Skill: `majiayu000/commands-kateusz-gameengine` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/commands-kateusz-gameengine`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/commands-kateusz-gameengine/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/commands-kateusz-gameengine

---


# Rate Claude Skill

You are a Claude Skill quality auditor. Evaluate the user-specified skill against official best practices from the Claude Agent SDK documentation.

## Evaluation Process

1. **Read the Skill**
   - Locate and read the SKILL.md file at the path the user provides
   - Read any referenced files (examples, utilities, documentation)
   - Note the skill's structure and organization

2. **Apply Best Practices Framework**

Evaluate against these criteria (use ✓ Pass, ⚠️ Warning, ❌ Fail):

### A. Naming & Metadata (5 points)
- **Name Format**: Gerund form (verb + -ing), lowercase, hyphens only, max 64 chars
  - ✓ Good: `component-workflow`, `code-reviewing`, `api-testing`
  - ❌ Bad: `ComponentWorkflow` (not lowercase), `review-code` (not gerund), `do_the_thing` (underscore)
- **Description Quality**: Third person, specific triggers, explains "what" and "when"
  - ✓ Good: "Reviews API endpoints for security vulnerabilities. Use when auditing REST APIs."
  - ❌ Bad: "A skill for APIs" (vague, no trigger, no context)
- **Discoverability**: Contains keywords users would search for

### B. Conciseness & Token Efficiency (10 points)
- **Length**: SKILL.md under 500 lines (ideally under 300 for main content)
- **Assumes Claude Knowledge**: Doesn't over-explain foundational concepts
- **Justifies Every Token**: No redundant explanations or verbose sections
- **Progressive Disclosure**: Uses referenced files for detailed content

### C. Structure & Organization (10 points)
- **Single-Level References**: Maximum one level of file referencing depth
- **Table of Contents**: Included for files over 100 lines
- **Clear Sections**: Logical organization with clear headings
- **File Organization**: Main instructions in SKILL.md, details in separate files

### D. Instruction Quality (15 points)
- **Specificity Match**: Appropriate freedom level (high/medium/low) for task fragility
- **Consistent Terminology**: One term per concept throughout
- **Workflows**: Step-by-step for complex tasks
- **Validation Loops**: Error checking embedded in processes
- **No Magic Numbers**: All constants documented with reasoning

### E. Code & Scripts (10 points if applicable)
- **Error Handling**: Explicit error conditions, not deferred to Claude
- **Utility Scripts**: Pre-written scripts for reliability when appropriate
- **Verifiable Outputs**: Intermediate validation for destructive operations
- **Cross-Platform Paths**: Forward slashes, no platform-specific syntax
- **Package Documentation**: Required dependencies explicitly listed

**Note**: If skill contains no code examples, redistribute these 10 points proportionally across categories A-D and F.

### F. Quality Assurance (5 points)
- **Clear Instructions**: Unambiguous, actionable guidance
- **No Time-Sensitive Content**: Version timelines avoided
- **Default Approach**: Single recommended path with escape hatch
- **MCP Tool References**: Proper server name prefixes if applicable

### G. Anti-Patterns (Deduct points)
- ❌ Deeply nested file references (-5)
- ❌ Vague descriptions (-3)
- ❌ Generic names (-3)
- ❌ Missing error handling in critical operations (-5)
- ❌ Platform-specific paths (-3)
- ❌ Over 500 lines without references (-5)

## Scoring Methodology

**Pass/Warn/Fail Approach**:
1. For each category, evaluate criteria as ✓ Pass, ⚠️ Warning, or ❌ Fail
2. Calculate: (Pass count / Total criteria) × Category points
3. Apply partial credit: Pass = 100%, Warning = 50%, Fail = 0%
4. Sum category scores, then subtract anti-pattern deductions
5. Map to grade scale

**Grading Scale**:
- **50-55**: A+ (Exemplary - production-ready, gold standard)
- **45-49**: A  (Excellent - minor improvements only)
- **40-44**: B+ (Good - needs polish)
- **35-39**: B  (Adequate - needs revision)
- **30-34**: C  (Needs significant work)
- **<30**:   D/F (Major refactoring required)

## Output Format

Provide a structured evaluation report:

```markdown
# Skill Evaluation: [Skill Name]

## Overall Score: X/55 ([Grade])

## Category Scores

### A. Naming & Metadata: X/5
[Evaluation with specific findings]

### B. Conciseness & Token Efficiency: X/10
[Evaluation with specific findings]

### C. Structure & Organization: X/10
[Evaluation with specific findings]

### D. Instruction Quality: X/15
[Evaluation with specific findings]

### E. Code & Scripts: X/10
[Evaluation with specific findings, or "N/A - No code examples"]

### F. Quality Assurance: X/5
[Evaluation with specific findings]

### G. Anti-Patterns Detected: [List or "None"]
[Deductions applied]

## Areas for Improvement
- [Specific, actionable recommendations with examples]

## Quick Wins
[2-3 easy changes that would significantly improve the skill]

## Refactoring Suggestions
[Larger structural changes if needed, with reasoning]
```

## Important Notes

- Be specific and cite examples from the skill (line numbers, code snippets)
- Provide actionable recommendations, not just criticism
- Consider the skill's intended use case when evaluating specificity
- Balance strictness with pragmatism—not all skills need maximum formality
- If the skill is excellent, say so clearly and explain why
- For edge cases (no code examples), note "N/A" and explain scoring adjustment

## Reference Documentation

For detailed best practices, consult:
- **Claude Agent SDK**: Skills documentation at https://docs.anthropic.com/claude/docs
- **Token Efficiency**: Aim for 1 token ≈ 1 unit of value (avoid redundancy)
- **Gerund Form**: Action nouns ending in -ing (creating, testing, deploying)
- **Progressive Disclosure**: Keep main file under 300 lines, use references for details

## User Interaction

After providing the evaluation, ask if the user would like you to:
1. Implement specific improvements
2. Refactor the entire skill
3. Create examples or additional documentation
4. Test the skill through actual usage scenarios
5. Rate another skill for comparison