Skill Enhancer

Skill Enhancer

Purpose: This meta-skill analyzes other skills for compliance with TDD, CSO, and Script-First standards, guiding the agent through upgrades.

1. Red Flags (Anti-Rationalization)

STOP and READ THIS if you are thinking:

• "I'll just add the sections blindly" -> WRONG. You must understand why the skill fails before fixing it.
• "The description is close enough" -> WRONG. It must start with "Use when".
• "Examples are optional" -> WRONG. "Rich Skills" mandate examples.
• "It's just a small 20-line example" -> WRONG. Inline blocks > 12 lines are prohibited. Extract them.
• "I'll instruct the agent to parse the file line-by-line in text" -> WRONG. Use "Script-First".

2. Capabilities

• Audit: Detect gaps (missing Red Flags, oversized inline blocks, poor CSO, weak language) using analyze_gaps.py.
• Rule scoping: the analyser reads prose, not code. Fenced blocks and inline code spans are masked before the prose rules run, [--flag VALUE] is CLI usage notation rather than an unfilled slot, and /tmp/out.pdf in a reproducible command is not the absolute-path anti-pattern — only a path naming one machine or one user's account is (WI-033).
• Execution Policy Audit: Detect missing Execution Mode, Script Contract, Safety Boundaries, and Validation Evidence sections.
• Security Remediation: Fix vulnerabilities flagged by skill-validator (e.g., curl | bash, secrets, weak permissions).
• Plan: Propose specific content improvements using references/refactoring_patterns.md.
• Execute: Apply refactoring patterns to upgrade the skill.

2.5. Execution Mode

• Mode: hybrid
• Rationale: gap triage and refactoring decisions are prompt-driven, while gap detection is script-driven.

2.6. Script Contract

• Primary Command: python3 scripts/analyze_gaps.py <target-skill-path> [--json] [--strict]
• Inputs: target skill path + optional output mode.
• Outputs: two lists and a status — gaps (blocking) and advisories (reported, non-blocking).
• Failure Semantics: non-zero exit when blocking gaps exist (deterministic gate behavior). Advisories are printed and leave the exit code at 0; --strict promotes them to blocking. The split mirrors validate_skill.py, which already passes a skill that has only warnings — without it the two gates return different verdicts on the same file (WI-033).
• Advisory classes: [Language] (the graduated-wording call is per instruction, not mechanical) and [Execution Policy] (a declared warning-first migration), plus the minor tier of [Token Efficiency].

2.7. Safety Boundaries

• Scope: apply edits only to explicitly selected target skill.
• Default Exclusions: do not refactor unrelated skills or global docs by default.
• Destructive Actions: full-file overwrite is prohibited unless explicitly requested and reviewed.

2.8. Validation Evidence

• Primary Evidence: before/after analyze_gaps.py output.
• Secondary Evidence: targeted diffs proving that each reported gap was addressed.
• Quality Gate: no unresolved critical structure gaps after refactor.

3. Instructions

Phase 1: Audit

1. Run Analyzer: python3 scripts/analyze_gaps.py <target-skill-path>.
2. Manual Checks:
   • Graduated Language Review: Check instruction language against the graduated approach:
     • Safety-critical steps (data loss, destructive ops): Must use MUST/ALWAYS + explanation why — if the explanation is missing, add it
     • Behavioral steps (formatting, style): Apply explain-why + imperative style — if bare MUST without rationale, add the rationale; if weak "should"/"could", strengthen to imperative + reason
     • Do NOT blindly replace every "should" with "MUST" — evaluate whether the instruction is safety-critical or behavioral first
   • Script-First Gap: Identify if complex logic steps (> 5 lines of text) MUST be converted to a script/.
3. Review Gaps: Read the analyzer output and your manual findings.

Phase 1.5: Execution-Policy Audit

1. Verify Execution Mode section exists and is explicit (prompt-first, script-first, or hybrid).
2. If skill uses scripts/, verify Script Contract section defines command, inputs, outputs, and exit behavior.
3. Verify Safety Boundaries section defines scope limits and non-default destructive behavior.
4. Verify Validation Evidence section defines objective verification outputs. 4a. Check its size. validate_skill.py warns past quality_checks.max_validation_evidence_lines (skill_standards_default.yaml), which means the section is carrying an investigation rather than a verdict. Refactor: keep date, commands, counts and pass/fail in SKILL.md; move figures, refuted hypotheses and worked examples into references/<topic>.md and link them. This is a gap to fix, not prose to trim arbitrarily — nothing is deleted, it moves.
5. Mark missing pieces as migration gaps (warning-first for legacy skills).

Phase 1.7: Behavioral Analysis (If Usage Logs Available)

If transcripts or logs from real skill usage exist, analyze them for patterns:

1. Repeated Code: Did the agent write the same helper script across multiple runs? → Extract to scripts/.
2. Repeated Questions: Did the agent ask the same questions or re-discover the same context? → Add to references/.
3. Excessive Token Usage: Did the agent spend tokens reading large inline blocks? → Plan extraction to external files.
4. Unused Sections: Did the agent skip reading certain sections entirely? → Consider trimming or consolidating.

If no usage logs are available, skip this phase — it will become relevant after the skill is deployed.

Phase 2: Plan

1. Read Target Skill: Read the content of the target skill.
2. Draft Improvements:
   • Token Efficiency: Identify blocks > 12 lines and plan extraction to examples/, assets/, or references/.
   • Script-First: Identify logic blocks > 5 lines and plan extraction to scripts/.
   • Execution Policy: Add missing policy sections and scope constraints.
   • Graduated Language: Replace weak words using the graduated approach — MUST + why for safety, explain-why + imperative for behavioral.
   • Red Flags: Identify 2-3 likely agent excuses for this specific task.
   • CSO & Pushiness: Rewrite description to "Use when [TRIGGER]...". Check if description is "pushy" enough to prevent under-triggering — add edge-case triggers and phrases like "even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for…".
   • Generalization: Check if instructions are overfitted to specific examples. A skill must work across many prompts, not just the test cases it was developed with.
3. Confirm: Ensure improvements align with the "Skills as Code" philosophy.

Phase 3: Execute

1. Update File: Edit the target SKILL.md to insert the new sections.
   • CRITICAL: Use replace_file_content or multi_replace_file_content.
   • DO NOT use write_to_file to overwrite existing content (Data Loss Risk).
   • Tip: Use references/refactoring_patterns.md for the style guide.
2. Verify: Re-run analyze_gaps.py. Expect "No Gaps Found", or "No blocking gaps" with the advisories listed. An advisory is closed by fixing it or by writing down why it stands — never by editing correct documentation to satisfy a rule that is reading it wrong. If a rule fires on correct content, narrow the rule and pin both halves in scripts/tests/test_rule_scoping.py: what it now ignores, and the defect it must still catch.

Phase 3.5: Security Repair (If triggered by Validator)

1. Analyze Report: Read the skill-validator JSON output.
2. Consult Guide: Use references/security_refactoring.md to find safe alternatives for flagged patterns.
3. Apply Fixes:
   • Shell Injection: Replace direct execution with argument arrays.
   • Downloads: Replace curl | bash with download -> inspect -> execute.
   • Secrets: Move hardcoded keys to environment variables.

Phase 4: Final VDD Check

1. Read Checklist: Open references/vdd_checklist.md.
2. Self-Correction: Verify your work against the 5 criteria (Data Safety, Anti-Laziness, etc.).
3. Refine: If any check fails (e.g., found "TODO", found unmotivated "should"), fix it immediately.
4. Test Coverage: Verify the skill has at least 2-3 test prompts — either in evals/evals.json or documented inline. If none exist, create them based on the skill's intended use cases.

4. Best Practices

Rationalization Table

5. Examples (Few-Shot)

[!TIP] See examples/usage_example.md for a complete Before & After walkthrough of upgrading a legacy skill.

Input:

python3 scripts/analyze_gaps.py ../target-skill

Output:

⚠️  Gaps Detected...
Recommendation: Run 'Execute Improvement Plan'...

6. Resources

• scripts/analyze_gaps.py: The gap detection tool.
• references/writing_skills_best_practices_anthropic.md: The authoritative "Gold Standard" guide used to verify compliance.
• references/testing-skills-with-subagents.md: Methodology for verifying fixes using TDD (Red-Green-Refactor).
• ../skill-creator/agents/grader.md: Prompt for evaluating skill execution results against expectations.
• ../skill-creator/agents/comparator.md: Prompt for blind A/B comparison of two skill outputs.
• ../skill-creator/agents/analyzer.md: Prompt for post-hoc analysis — identifies why one skill version outperforms another.