Completeness Audit — plugin-creator Skill

Completeness Audit — plugin-creator Skill

Skill path: plugins/plugin-creator/skills/plugin-creator/SKILL.md Audit date: 2026-02-26 Rubric: 8-category, 0–3 per category, 24 points total Validator token count: 6,979 tokens (SK006 warning: above 4,400 threshold; below 8,800 error threshold)

Overall Score: 18/24

Marketplace ready: Yes, with the caveats noted in Categories 4 and 7.

Category Scores

Category 1 — Frontmatter Completeness (0–3): 2/3

Evidence

name: plugin-creator
description: Orchestrates specialized agents to create high-quality Claude Code plugins. Delegates to
  researcher agents for domain knowledge, Explore agents for code discovery, validation agents for
  official docs verification, and review agents for quality checks. Use when creating new plugins or
  improving existing ones.
model: sonnet
user-invocable: true

Assessment

name and description are both present and valid. name matches the directory name. description is a single-line string (no multiline indicator), includes action verbs, delegation targets, and trigger phrases ("Use when creating new plugins or improving existing ones"). model: sonnet is present.

Deduction: allowed-tools is absent. This skill orchestrates agents but does not lock down tool access. Since the skill is meant to be an orchestrator loaded in the main context (not forked), the absence is intentional and not a schema violation, but it leaves the skill with no declared tool scope for the reviewer. context and agent are absent, consistent with orchestrator intent.

Score rationale: Required fields present and valid. Optional fields absent but appropriate for the pattern. One optional field (allowed-tools) could improve safety. Minus 1.

Category 2 — Purpose Clarity (0–3): 3/3

Evidence

Line 9–12:

This skill orchestrates specialized agents through a comprehensive plugin creation workflow. The
orchestrator (you) delegates to sub-agents for research, discovery, validation, and implementation -
never performing these tasks directly.

Lines 21–29: Orchestration rules table mapping task types to agents with explicit "Never Do Directly" constraints.

Lines 45–88: Artifact system section defines the work directory structure, STATE.md format, and recovery protocol — all evidence of a well-bounded purpose.

Assessment

The skill's purpose (orchestrate, never execute directly) is stated within the first three lines of body content and reinforced in multiple structured sections. The constraint is machine-readable (table format, XML-tagged sections). No ambiguity about what the orchestrator must and must not do.

Score rationale: Purpose is unambiguous, bounded, and reiterated through concrete examples. Full marks.

Category 3 — Workflow Coverage (0–3): 3/3

Evidence

Seven discrete phases, each in a tagged section:

• Phase 0: RT-ICA Prerequisite Check (<prerequisite_checkpoint>)
• Phase 0.5: Discussion (<discussion_phase>)
• Phase 1: Research — 4-Way Parallel (<research_phase>)
• Phase 2: Design — Plan + Verify Loop (<design_phase>)
• Phase 3: Implementation — Atomic Execution (<implementation_phase>)
• Phase 4: Validation — Multi-Layer Verification (<validation_phase>)
• Phase 5: Documentation (<documentation_phase>)
• Phase 6: Final Verification (<final_checkpoint>)

Each phase specifies agent type, delegation pattern, and output artifact.

Assessment

The workflow is end-to-end from prerequisite check through final verification. Coverage extends to failure recovery (debug loop in Phase 4), parallel vs sequential execution guidance, and atomic commit strategy. This is unusually thorough coverage.

Score rationale: All major workflow stages covered with explicit agent routing and artifact outputs. Full marks.

Category 4 — Content Duplication (0–3): 1/3

Evidence

Phase 3b appears twice in the file:

• Lines 477–493: "Phase 3b: Advanced Features Reference" — scaffolding script, manual directory structure
• Lines 587–869: "Phase 3b: Advanced Features Reference" — <advanced_features> XML block covering dynamic context injection, string substitutions, subagent execution, visual output, hooks, MCP, LSP, plugin caching, path rules, invocation control, extended thinking

The second block (lines 587–869) is a separate, largely non-overlapping section with the same heading. The two sections are not cross-referenced. Lines 477–524 partially duplicate content from lines 495–524 (the <implementation_structure> block contains the directory structure and critical rules that overlap with Phase 3's Option B guidance).

Additionally, the plugin.json schema table (lines 526–558) and SKILL.md frontmatter table (lines 562–584) replicate information already available in the loaded claude-plugins-reference-2026 and claude-skills-overview-2026 reference skills. Inline duplication of this schema content adds ~450 tokens of overhead that could be replaced by a pointer.

Score rationale: One section heading used twice for different content (confusing but not wrong). Inline schema tables duplicate loaded reference skills. Moderate duplication impact. Score: 1.

Category 5 — Example Quality (0–3): 3/3

Evidence

The skill contains concrete, runnable examples throughout:

• Lines 104–109: 4-Way Parallel Research pattern with actual Task(agent=..., prompt=...) syntax
• Lines 232–267: Full researcher prompts for each of the four parallel agents, including specific URLs to fetch
• Lines 308–338: XML task specification format with complete <task> block example
• Lines 403–431: Executor task pattern with full prompt template
• Lines 438–443: Atomic git commit commands
• Lines 464–468: Scaffolding script invocation with actual arguments
• Lines 481–491: Multi-component script invocation with flags
• Lines 880–884, 892–904, 908–920, 926–948: All four validation layers with full Task() invocations
• Lines 990–1004: Documentation phase delegation with full prompt

Assessment

Examples are specific (not abstract), include actual agent types, real URLs, and testable verify commands. The XML task spec format (Phase 2a) provides a template that any orchestrator can follow literally. High signal density.

Score rationale: Examples are concrete, cover every workflow phase, and are directly executable. Full marks.

Category 6 — Reference Integration (0–3): 2/3

Evidence

Reference link (line 13):

**Workflow Diagram**: See [workflow-diagram.md](./references/workflow-diagram.md) for mermaid flowcharts

references/workflow-diagram.md exists and is linked correctly (verified: file present at plugins/plugin-creator/skills/plugin-creator/references/workflow-diagram.md).

The workflow diagram file contains 8 Mermaid flowcharts covering all phases plus an agent delegation map, failure recovery paths, tool inventory, and agent discovery mechanism. It includes cited sources for each table.

workflow-diagram.md links back to SKILL.md at line 330:

This workflow diagram documents the agentic plugin creation process defined in [SKILL.md](../SKILL.md).

Bidirectional linking is present.

Gaps: The skill body contains inline schema tables (plugin.json, SKILL.md frontmatter) that could instead link to the already-loaded reference skills (claude-plugins-reference-2026, claude-skills-overview-2026). Lines 526–584 inline ~250 tokens of schema content with no link to those reference skills for the reader who wants the full spec. The <advanced_features> section (lines 587–869) has per-feature source URLs but no progressive disclosure link to a dedicated reference file — all advanced feature documentation is inlined, contributing to the SK006 token warning.

Score rationale: One reference file linked, bidirectional link present. Heavy inline documentation where progressive disclosure to reference files would reduce token load and improve navigability. Minus 1.

Category 7 — Instruction Actionability (0–3): 2/3

Evidence

Actionable:

• All delegation instructions follow the delegation format standard: agent type named, context described, output specified
• <orchestration_rules> table on lines 23–30 gives a direct mapping with no ambiguity
• <prerequisite_checkpoint> (lines 134–169) gives the exact RT-ICA template to fill in
• Phase 3 executor pattern (lines 403–431) is a copy-paste template

Partially actionable:

• The "Discussion" phase (lines 173–218) lists questions to ask but does not specify the format or mechanism for asking (e.g., which tool, whether to use AskUserQuestion or free-form output). An orchestrator reading this section must infer the interaction pattern.
• The "Parallel Agent Spawning" section (lines 94–128) describes the pattern correctly but does not clarify the boundary between tasks that can always run in parallel vs. those requiring conditional parallelism (e.g., when task 2 depends on task 1's file output). Phase 3c provides guidance but only for implementation tasks, not research tasks.
• The "Phase 6: Final Verification" section (lines 1011–1037) directs invocation of the verify skill but does not specify the skill namespace (e.g., whether it is verify or plugin-creator:verify), making the reference ambiguous for an orchestrator that needs to invoke it.

Score rationale: Core delegation instructions are fully actionable. Discussion phase and final verification invocation have minor ambiguities that could cause an orchestrator to pause. Minus 1.

Category 8 — Source Citations (0–3): 2/3

Evidence

Cited with URLs:

• Line 558: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/plugins-reference.md#plugin-manifest-schema
• Line 583–584: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills.md
• Line 612: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills.md#inject-dynamic-context
• Line 667: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills.md#run-skills-in-a-subagent
• Line 711: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills.md#generate-visual-output
• Line 764: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/hooks.md
• Line 786: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/mcp.md
• Line 814: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/plugins-reference.md#plugin-caching-and-file-resolution
• Lines 1070–1076: Footer sources section with 5 URLs

Not cited:

• Lines 94–128 ("Parallel Agent Spawning" section): The 4-way parallel pattern and sequential requirements are asserted without a citation. This is an orchestration design decision, not a fact from official docs, but it is presented prescriptively with no attribution.
• Lines 134–169 ("RT-ICA Prerequisite Check"): References the rt-ica skill but does not link to it with a namespace path (e.g., plugin-creator:rt-ica or the skill's actual namespace). A reader cannot determine from this section where the skill resides.
• Lines 440–447 (atomic git commit benefits): Claims about git bisect are common knowledge but uncited.

Score rationale: Official documentation claims are well-cited with URLs. Internal design decisions and skill references are asserted without links. Missing namespace for the rt-ica skill reference is a navigability gap. Minus 1.

Summary Table

Top Recommendations

1. Resolve the duplicate "Phase 3b" heading (lines 477 and 587). Rename the second block to "Phase 3c: Advanced Feature Reference" and add a forward link from Phase 3 to it. This removes the navigational confusion and makes the two sections clearly complementary rather than apparently redundant.

2. Extract <advanced_features> section to a reference file. At 6,979 tokens the skill already triggers SK006. Moving the advanced features block (~1,400 tokens) to ./references/advanced-features.md and replacing it with a progressive disclosure link would bring the skill below the warning threshold and follow the same pattern used for the workflow diagram.

3. Specify the rt-ica skill namespace in Phase 0. Replace the bare "Invoke the rt-ica skill" instruction with the activation syntax (e.g., Skill(command: "rt-ica") or the full namespace) so an orchestrator can invoke it without searching.

4. Replace inline schema tables with reference skill pointers. Lines 526–584 duplicate content from claude-plugins-reference-2026 and claude-skills-overview-2026. Replace them with: For complete plugin.json and SKILL.md frontmatter schema, use the /claude-plugins-reference-2026 and /claude-skills-overview-2026 skills.

5. Add interaction mechanism to the Discussion phase. Specify whether the orchestrator should ask questions as free-form output, use a specific tool, or write to discuss-CONTEXT.md directly. The current list of questions lacks the execution instruction that would make the section fully actionable.