majiayu000 Skill Review
Review Agent Skill PRs for structural validity, design quality, and marketplace consistency.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS: Output file path for review results (required, passed by the calling harness or the user)--base <branch>: Base branch for diff comparison (default:main)
Workflow
Step 1: Parse Arguments
Extract the output path from $ARGUMENTS. If no path is provided, default to .review-output.md. Extract --base if provided, otherwise default to main.
Step 2: Identify Changed Skills
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD <base>)..<HEAD> | grep -E '(SKILL\.md|skills/[^/]+/)'
Group changed files by skill directory. Each unique skill directory is a review target. If no skill files changed, write "No skill files changed" to the output path and stop.
Step 3: Read Each Changed Skill End-to-End
For each changed skill:
- Read the full
SKILL.md(not just diff lines) - Read all files in the skill directory (references, scripts)
- Note the parent plugin directory and locate its
plugin.json
Step 4: Run Structural Checks (HIGH Confidence)
Apply every check in references/structural-checks.md. These are binary pass/fail — violations are clear-cut.
Structural violations are HIGH confidence because they can be verified mechanically.
Step 5: Run Design Checks (MEDIUM Confidence)
Apply every check in references/design-checks.md. These require judgment — flag only when the issue is clear, not when the approach is merely different from what you'd choose.
Design issues are MEDIUM confidence because they involve subjective assessment.
Step 6: Run Marketplace Checks (HIGH Confidence)
Apply every check in references/marketplace-checks.md. These verify the skill integrates correctly with the marketplace it belongs to.
Marketplace violations are HIGH confidence because they can be verified by reading manifest files.
Step 7: Load and Apply Verification Protocol
Load the review-verification-protocol skill. Before reporting any finding, verify:
- You read the actual skill content, not just the diff context
- The issue is real, not a style preference
- The issue applies to skill files specifically (not general code review concerns)
- You can point to the specific line that proves the issue
Remove any finding you cannot verify.
Step 8: Write Output
Write all findings to the output path specified in Step 1, using the exact format below.
Output Format
## Review Summary
[1-2 sentence overview of findings across all reviewed skills]
## Issues
### Critical (Blocking)
1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
- Issue: Description of what's wrong
- Why: Why this matters for skill quality or marketplace health
- Fix: Specific recommended fix
- Confidence: HIGH
### Major (Should Fix)
N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
- Issue: ...
- Why: ...
- Fix: ...
- Confidence: HIGH|MEDIUM
### Minor (Nice to Have)
N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
- Issue: ...
- Why: ...
- Fix: ...
- Confidence: HIGH|MEDIUM
### Informational (For Awareness)
N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE
- Suggestion: ...
- Rationale: ...
- Confidence: MEDIUM
## Verdict
Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N
Rationale: [1-2 sentences — only Critical and Major items block approval]
Every issue gets a sequential number. Every issue includes Confidence: HIGH|MEDIUM. The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items.
Severity Calibration
Critical (Block Merge)
- Invalid or missing YAML frontmatter (skill won't load)
- Missing required
nameordescriptionfield - SKILL.md exceeds 500 lines (performance degradation)
- Name collision with existing skill in the marketplace
Major (Should Fix)
nameviolates format rules (not kebab-case, too long, reserved word)descriptionmissing "what" or "when" component, wrong person, or exceeds 1024 chars- Nested reference chains (references that reference other references)
- Description too vague to trigger accurately
- Structured output with no format template or example
- Windows-style paths in file references
Minor (Nice to Have)
- Time-sensitive content (hardcoded dates, "recently", "new")
- Inconsistent terminology across skill files
- Progressive disclosure not used when SKILL.md is dense
- Workflows missing validation steps
- Missing cross-reference (SKILL.md links to file that doesn't exist)
Informational (For Awareness)
- Trigger keyword overlap with existing marketplace skills
- Suggestions for additional reference files
- Opportunities to improve description specificity
- Script lacks
--helpor uses interactive prompts
Re-Review Rules
On subsequent review passes after fixes are applied:
- ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly
- Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to previous issues
- Accept Minor items that weren't fixed — do not re-flag
- The goal of re-review is verification, not discovery
References
- Structural checks: references/structural-checks.md — frontmatter, naming, line limits, path format
- Design checks: references/design-checks.md — description quality, progressive disclosure, degrees of freedom
- Marketplace checks: references/marketplace-checks.md — name collision, plugin.json consistency, trigger overlap