skill-validator
Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Validates skills against production-level criteria with 9-category scoring. This skill should be used when reviewing, auditing, or improving skills to ensure quality standards. Evaluates structure, content, user interaction, documentation, domain standards, technical robustness, maintainability, zero-shot implementation, and reusability. Returns actionable validation report with scores and improvement recommendations.
17 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-toolingtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- gurupak/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- AlessioScarfone/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- manastalukdar/ai-devstudiotheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- vbonk/repo-templatetheir own version, first seen Aug 6, 2026
- sheikh-mohammad/agent-factory-claude-skillsword for word, first seen Aug 4, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use browsing-with-playwright, interview and 8 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
mjunaidcaSkillbrowsing-with-playwright
Browser automation using Playwright MCP. Navigate websites, fill forms, click elements, take screenshots, and extract data. Use when tasks require web browsing, form submission, web scraping, UI testing, or any browser interaction. NOT when only fetching static content (use curl/wget instead).
Also in 5 projects that use this
dazuckSkillinterview
Interview me about a plan to flesh out requirements before implementation. Asks non-obvious questions one at a time until all ambiguities are resolved.
Also in 4 projects that use this
JetBrainsSkilldoc-coauthoring
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.
Also in 4 projects that use this
GoogleSkillinternal-comms
A set of resources to help me write all kinds of internal communications, using the formats that my company likes to use. Claude should use this skill whenever asked to write some sort of internal communications (status reports, leadership updates, 3P updates, company newsletters, FAQs, incident reports, project updates, etc.).
Also in 4 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillxlsx
Comprehensive spreadsheet creation, editing, and analysis with support for formulas, formatting, data analysis, and visualization. When Claude needs to work with spreadsheets (.xlsx, .xlsm, .csv, .tsv, etc) for: (1) Creating new spreadsheets with formulas and formatting, (2) Reading or analyzing data, (3) Modify existing spreadsheets while preserving formulas, (4) Data analysis and visualization in spreadsheets, or (5) Recalculating formulas
Also in 5 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillpptx
Use this skill any time a .pptx or .potx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx or .potx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an email or summary); editing, modifying, or updating existing presentations; combining or splitting slide files; working with templates (.potx), layouts, speaker notes, or comments. Trigger whenever the user mentions \"deck,\" \"slides,\" \"presentation,\" or references a .pptx or .potx filename, regardless of what they plan to do with the content afterward. If a .pptx or .potx file needs to be opened, created, or touched, use this skill.
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +2 more from anthropics
Other versions17 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 5
- panaversity/claude-code-skills-lab★ 57100% same
- sheikh-mohammad/agent-factory-claude-skills★ 6100% same
- gurupak/claude-skills★ 0100% same
- muhammad-anas35/genai-backend★ 0100% same
- syeda-hoorain-ali/personal-ai-employee-hackathon★ 0100% same
Edited · 1
- Rehan-Ul-Haq/my-skills★ 899% same
Wrote their own version · 11
- vbonk/repo-template★ 8same name
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling★ 6same name
- localSummer/skills★ 4same name
- shipshitgames/skills★ 2same name
- studiobrittany/studio-brittany-ai★ 2same name
- coreline-ai/validation-skill-base★ 1same name
- manastalukdar/ai-devstudio★ 1same name
- MatrixFounder/Universal-skills★ 1same name
- roeytechai/Claude_Skills★ 1same name
- AlessioScarfone/skills★ 0same name
1 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ceo-briefingSkill
- dashboard-updateSkill
- email-skillSkill
- fetch-library-docsSkill
- hitl-workflowSkill
- linkedin-skillSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- odoo-accountingSkill
- process-tasksSkill
- reasoning-loopSkill
- skill-creator-proSkill
- social-managerSkill
- ceo-briefingSkill
- dashboard-updateSkill
- email-skillSkill
- fetch-library-docsSkill
- hitl-workflowSkill
- linkedin-skillSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- odoo-accountingSkill
- process-tasksSkill
- reasoning-loopSkill
- skill-creator-proSkill
- skill-validatorSkill
- social-managerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 207
After scoring general criteria, verify type-specific requirements:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Skill Validator
Validate any skill against production-level quality criteria.
Validation Workflow
Phase 1: Gather Context
- Read the skill's SKILL.md completely
- Identify skill type from frontmatter description:
- Builder skill (creates artifacts)
- Guide skill (provides instructions)
- Automation skill (executes workflows)
- Analyzer skill (extracts insights)
- Validator skill (enforces quality)
- Hybrid skill (combination of above)
- Read all reference files in
references/directory - Check for assets/scripts directories
- Note frontmatter fields (
name,description,allowed-tools,model)
Phase 2: Apply Criteria
Evaluate against 9 criteria categories. Each criterion scores 0-3:
- 0: Missing/Absent
- 1: Present but inadequate
- 2: Adequate implementation
- 3: Excellent implementation
Criteria Categories
1. Structure & Anatomy (Weight: 12%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| SKILL.md exists | Root file present |
| Line count | <500 lines (context is precious) |
| Frontmatter complete | name and description present in YAML |
| Name constraints | Lowercase, numbers, hyphens only; ≤64 chars; matches directory |
| Description format | [What] + [When] format; ≤1024 chars |
| Description style | Third-person: "This skill should be used when..." |
| No extraneous files | No README.md, CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE in skill dir |
| Progressive disclosure | Details in references/, not bloated SKILL.md |
| Asset organization | Templates in assets/, scripts in scripts/ |
| Large file guidance | If references >10k words, grep patterns in SKILL.md |
Fail condition: Missing SKILL.md or >800 lines = automatic fail
2. Content Quality (Weight: 15%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Conciseness | No verbose explanations, context is public good |
| Imperative form | Instructions use "Do X" not "You should do X" |
| Appropriate freedom | Constraints where needed, flexibility where safe |
| Scope clarity | Clear what skill does AND does not do |
| No hallucination risk | No instructions that encourage making up info |
| Output specification | Clear expected outputs defined |
3. User Interaction (Weight: 12%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Clarification triggers | Asks questions before acting on ambiguity |
| Required vs optional | Distinguishes must-know from nice-to-know |
| Graceful handling | What to do when user doesn't answer |
| No over-asking | Doesn't ask obvious or inferrable questions |
| Question pacing | Avoids too many questions in single message |
| Context awareness | Uses available context before asking |
Key pattern to look for:
## Required Clarifications
1. Question about X
2. Question about Y
## Optional Clarifications
3. Question about Z (if relevant)
Note: Avoid asking too many questions in a single message.4. Documentation & References (Weight: 10%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Source URLs | Official documentation links provided |
| Reference files | Complex details in references/ not main file |
| Fetch guidance | Instructions to fetch docs for unlisted patterns |
| Version awareness | Notes about checking for latest patterns |
| Example coverage | Good/bad examples for key patterns |
Key pattern to look for:
| Resource | URL | Use For |
|----------|-----|---------|
| Official Docs | https://... | Complex cases |5. Domain Standards (Weight: 10%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Best practices | Follows domain conventions (e.g., WCAG, OWASP) |
| Enforcement mechanism | Checklists, validation steps, must-verify items |
| Anti-patterns | Lists what NOT to do |
| Quality gates | Output checklist before delivery |
Key pattern to look for:
### Must Follow
- [ ] Requirement 1
- [ ] Requirement 2
### Must Avoid
- Antipattern 1
- Antipattern 26. Technical Robustness (Weight: 8%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Error handling | Guidance for failure scenarios |
| Security considerations | Input validation, secrets handling if relevant |
| Dependencies | External tools/APIs documented |
| Edge cases | Common edge cases addressed |
| Testability | Can outputs be verified? |
7. Maintainability (Weight: 8%)
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Modularity | References are self-contained topics |
| Update path | Easy to update when standards change |
| No hardcoded values | Uses placeholders/variables where appropriate |
| Clear organization | Logical section ordering |
8. Zero-Shot Implementation (Weight: 12%)
Skills should enable single-interaction implementation with embedded expertise.
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Before Implementation section | Context gathering guidance present |
| Codebase context | Guidance to scan existing structure/patterns |
| Conversation context | Uses discussed requirements/decisions |
| Embedded expertise | Domain knowledge in references/, not runtime discovery |
| User-only questions | Only asks for USER requirements, not domain knowledge |
Key pattern to look for:
## Before Implementation
Gather context to ensure successful implementation:
| Source | Gather |
|--------|--------|
| **Codebase** | Existing structure, patterns, conventions |
| **Conversation** | User's specific requirements |
| **Skill References** | Domain patterns from `references/` |
| **User Guidelines** | Project-specific conventions |Red flag: Skill instructs to "research" or "discover" domain knowledge at runtime instead of embedding it.
9. Reusability (Weight: 13%)
Skills should handle variations, not single requirements.
| Criterion | What to Check |
| Handles variations | Not hardcoded to single use case |
| Variable elements | Clarifications capture what VARIES |
| Constant patterns | Domain best practices encoded as constants |
| Not requirement-specific | Avoids hardcoded data, tools, configs |
| Abstraction level | Appropriate generalization for domain |
Good example:
"Create visualizations - adaptable to data shape, chart type, library"Bad example (too specific):
"Create bar chart with sales data using Recharts"Key check: Does the skill work for multiple use cases within its domain?
Type-Specific Validation
After scoring general criteria, verify type-specific requirements:
| Type | Must Have |
| Builder | Clarifications, Output Spec, Domain Standards, Output Checklist |
| Guide | Workflow Steps, Examples (Good/Bad), Official Docs links |
| Automation | Scripts in scripts/, Dependencies, Error Handling, I/O Spec |
| Analyzer | Analysis Scope, Evaluation Criteria, Output Format, Synthesis |
| Validator | Quality Criteria, Scoring Rubric, Thresholds, Remediation |
Scoring: Deduct 10 points if type-specific requirements missing for identified type.
Scoring Guide
Category Scores
Calculate each category score:
Category Score = (Sum of criterion scores) / (Max possible) * 100Overall Score
Overall = Σ(Category Score × Weight)Rating Thresholds
| Score | Rating | Meaning |
| 90-100 | Production | Ready for wide use |
| 75-89 | Good | Minor improvements needed |
| 60-74 | Adequate | Functional but needs work |
| 40-59 | Developing | Significant gaps |
| 0-39 | Incomplete | Major rework required |
Output Format
Generate validation report:
# Skill Validation Report: [skill-name]
**Rating**: [Production/Good/Adequate/Developing/Incomplete]
**Overall Score**: [X]/100
## Summary
[2-3 sentence assessment]
## Category Scores
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Structure & Anatomy | X/100 | 12% | X |
| Content Quality | X/100 | 15% | X |
| User Interaction | X/100 | 12% | X |
| Documentation | X/100 | 10% | X |
| Domain Standards | X/100 | 10% | X |
| Technical Robustness | X/100 | 8% | X |
| Maintainability | X/100 | 8% | X |
| Zero-Shot Implementation | X/100 | 12% | X |
| Reusability | X/100 | 13% | X |
| **Type-Specific Deduction** | -X | - | -X |
## Critical Issues (if any)
- [Issue requiring immediate fix]
## Improvement Recommendations
1. **High Priority**: [Specific action]
2. **Medium Priority**: [Specific action]
3. **Low Priority**: [Specific action]
## Strengths
- [What skill does well]Quick Validation Checklist
For rapid assessment, check these critical items:
Structure & Frontmatter
- SKILL.md <500 lines
- Frontmatter: name (≤64 chars, lowercase, hyphens) + description (≤1024 chars)
- Description uses third-person style ("This skill should be used when...")
- No README.md/CHANGELOG.md in skill directory
Content & Interaction
- Has clarification questions (Required vs Optional)
- Has output specification
- Has official documentation links
Zero-Shot & Reusability
- Has "Before Implementation" section (context gathering)
- Domain expertise embedded in
references/(not runtime discovery) - Handles variations (not requirement-specific)
Type-Specific (check based on skill type)
- Builder: Clarifications + Output Spec + Standards + Checklist
- Guide: Workflow + Examples + Docs
- Automation: Scripts + Dependencies + Error Handling
- Analyzer: Scope + Criteria + Output Format
- Validator: Criteria + Scoring + Thresholds + Remediation
If 10+ checked: Likely Production (90+) If 7-9 checked: Likely Good (75-89) If 5-6 checked: Likely Adequate (60-74) If <5 checked: Needs significant work
Reference Files
| File | When to Read |
references/detailed-criteria.md | Deep evaluation of specific criterion |
references/scoring-examples.md | Example validations for calibration |
references/improvement-patterns.md | Common fixes for common issues |
Usage Examples
Validate a skill
Validate the chatgpt-widget-creator skill against production criteriaQuick audit
Quick validation check on mcp-builder skillFocused review
Check if skill-creator skill has proper user interaction patternsDoes it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

