Skill Reviewer

Skill Reviewer

Review and improve existing skills based on Anthropic's official guide principles.

Review Workflow

Step 1: Read the Skill

Ask user for skill path or have them paste SKILL.md content.

Read the entire skill including:

• YAML frontmatter
• SKILL.md body
• Any bundled resources (scripts/, references/, templates/)

Step 2: Analyze Against 5 Principles

Evaluate each principle. See references/evaluation-criteria.md for detailed scoring.

1. Concise is Key

Check:

• Removes obvious information Claude already knows
• Prefers examples over explanations
• Challenges each piece: "Does this justify token cost?"
• SKILL.md body < 500 lines

Score: 0-10

2. Progressive Disclosure

Check:

• YAML description < 100 chars, triggers appropriately
• SKILL.md body loaded when relevant
• Details moved to references/ when appropriate
• Clear navigation to reference files

Score: 0-10

3. Degrees of Freedom

Check:

• Appropriate freedom level for each step
• High freedom: Multiple valid approaches
• Medium freedom: Preferred patterns with variation
• Low freedom: Exact scripts for fragile operations

Score: 0-10

4. Composability

Check:

• Works alongside other skills
• No exclusive resource assumptions
• No hardcoded paths or global state
• Namespaced variables if needed

Score: 0-10

5. Portability

Check:

• Works on Claude.ai, Claude Code, API
• Documents environment dependencies
• No platform-specific code in SKILL.md
• Provides fallbacks if needed

Score: 0-10

Step 3: Calculate Metrics

Token usage:

# Estimate tokens
wc -w SKILL.md
# Multiply by 1.3

Line count:

wc -l SKILL.md

Target:

• YAML: < 100 chars
• Body: < 500 lines (~2500 tokens)
• Total: < 5000 tokens

Step 4: Generate Report

Create structured report with:

# Skill Review: [skill-name]

## Overall Score: X/50

## Principle Scores

| Principle | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| Concise is Key | X/10 | ⚠️/✅ |
| Progressive Disclosure | X/10 | ⚠️/✅ |
| Degrees of Freedom | X/10 | ⚠️/✅ |
| Composability | X/10 | ⚠️/✅ |
| Portability | X/10 | ⚠️/✅ |

## Metrics

- YAML description: X chars (target: <100)
- SKILL.md lines: X (target: <500)
- Estimated tokens: X (target: <2500)
- Total skill tokens: X (target: <5000)

## Issues Found

### Critical (Must Fix)
1. [Issue description]
   - Current: [example]
   - Problem: [why it's bad]
   - Fix: [specific solution]

### Important (Should Fix)
2. [Issue description]
   - Current: [example]
   - Problem: [why it's bad]
   - Fix: [specific solution]

### Minor (Nice to Have)
3. [Issue description]
   - Current: [example]
   - Improvement: [suggestion]

## Strengths

- [What the skill does well]
- [Good patterns to keep]

## Recommendations

### Quick Wins (< 30 min)
1. [Specific actionable change]
2. [Specific actionable change]

### Medium Effort (1-2 hours)
1. [Restructuring suggestion]
2. [Content reorganization]

### Major Refactor (> 2 hours)
1. [Significant changes]
2. [Architecture improvements]

## Example Improvements

[Show before/after for 2-3 key issues]

Step 5: Offer to Generate Improved Version

Ask user: "Would you like me to generate an improved version?"

If yes:

1. Create improved SKILL.md following recommendations
2. Restructure with progressive disclosure if needed
3. Move verbose content to references/
4. Add missing resources
5. Validate against criteria
6. Deliver improved version

Common Issues

See references/common-issues.md for detailed examples:

Token Efficiency:

• Verbose explanations
• Obvious information
• Redundant content

Structure:

• No progressive disclosure
• Everything in SKILL.md
• Poor navigation

Clarity:

• Vague instructions
• Missing examples
• Unclear degrees of freedom

Compatibility:

• Hardcoded paths
• Platform-specific code
• Missing dependency docs

Quick Check Mode

For fast review, check top 5 issues:

1. YAML description > 100 chars? → Shorten
2. SKILL.md > 500 lines? → Split to references
3. Lots of "Claude is..." or "You should..."? → Delete
4. No examples, all prose? → Add examples
5. Everything in one file? → Use progressive disclosure

Scoring Guide

40-50: Excellent - Follows all principles 30-39: Good - Minor improvements needed 20-29: Fair - Significant improvements needed 10-19: Poor - Major refactor required 0-9: Critical - Complete rewrite recommended

Output Format

Always provide:

1. Structured review report
2. Specific, actionable recommendations
3. Before/after examples for key issues
4. Offer to generate improved version

Be constructive and specific. Focus on high-impact improvements first.