skill-quality
Skill1 starsChanged 15 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when making evidence-driven quality decisions for a skill package or its evals from benchmark results, grader feedback, review comments, session-history patterns, trigger failures, or quality regressions; especially when deciding what to change, what not to change, how to update assertions, or whether to rerun skill evals.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Valeriy1980/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- amandeepmittal/expo-docs-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 31, 2026
- skill-tools/skill-tools-plugintheir own version, first seen Feb 12, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- amandeepmittal/expo-docs-skills★ 1same name
- skill-tools/skill-tools-plugin★ 1same name
- Valeriy1980/claude-skills★ 0same name
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- minecraft-modding-workbenchSkill
- skill-evalSkill
- vibe-agent-instructionsSkill
- vibe-brainstormSkill
- vibe-code-researchSkill
- vibe-codingSkill
- vibe-commitSkill
- vibe-debugSkill
- vibe-goal-alignmentSkill
- vibe-orchestrateSkill
- vibe-plan-executionSkill
- vibe-planningSkill
- vibe-plan-reviewSkill
- vibe-requirements-specSkill
- vibe-reviewSkill
- vibe-writingSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
Start from the failure signal, not from a preferred rewrite.
- Distinctive: line 28
Before proposing a tracked skill or eval change, state:
- Distinctive: line 33
If the failure cannot be stated this way, keep investigating instead of adding prose.
- Distinctive: line 49
Before treating a surprising, repeated, tool-related, artifact-related, or transcript-contradicted failure as a skill defect, classify it …
- Distinctive: line 58
run variance or noise.
- Very specific: line 85
Read references/evidence-and-failure-classification.md when the decision depends on session history, relayed or delegated analysis, …
- Distinctive: line 94
Before retaining an existing field, ledger, fixed output shape, hash, mandatory review count, or eval assertion, ask whether it prevents a …
- Distinctive: line 135
When moving, condensing, or restating rules, preserve modality, exceptions, exact paths, commands, field names, local anchors, absence …
- Very specific: line 150
When a with_skill regression lands on rules the skill still states but generated or shared blocks now push down the file, test placement …
- Very specific: line 164
Read references/eval-quality-and-proof.md before changing eval prompts, assertions, fixtures, or suite coverage, and before interpreting a …
- Distinctive: line 170
never hand-run and self-grade a cell.
- Distinctive: line 171
never launch a fresh eval run without explicit user authorization.
- Distinctive: line 172
do not launch a run that has no pre-registered question to answer.
- Distinctive: line 173
do not send private skill packages, eval content, outputs, or session excerpts to an external agent or hosted service without explicit user …
- Distinctive: line 178
keep the official aggregate unchanged when recording a diagnostic corrected reading.
- Distinctive: line 182
do not commit generated eval workspaces unless explicitly requested.
- Distinctive: line 192
Before reporting a tracked change complete:
- Distinctive: line 199
Keep changelog text to the final durable behavior, validation, and honest proof status.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Skill Quality
Overview
Turn observed skill or eval failures into small, testable contract changes, and decide what not to change. This skill does not authorize release preparation, version bumps, commits, committing generated workspaces, edits to local skill snapshots, or unrelated package rewrites. When another workflow owns the primary deliverable (a spec, plan, review, or repair), that workflow keeps authority; apply this skill only where evidence becomes future skill behavior, eval pressure, or proof requirements. Each reference below is mandatory when its read-when condition matches.
Core Decision Record
Start from the failure signal, not from a preferred rewrite. Collect only the
evidence the decision needs and label implementation-affecting claims
Primary source, Local investigation, Unproven, or Accepted risk. Old
session memory, a plausible fix, a single pass, a relayed summary, or reviewer
preference is not proof.
Before proposing a tracked skill or eval change, state:
- the evidence map and any unsupported claims;
- one contract delta:
When <trigger/context>, the skill should <observable behavior>, because <stable reason>, and it must not <known degeneration>.If the failure cannot be stated this way, keep investigating instead of adding prose; - the smallest owning surfaces, and the surfaces that must not change;
- the proof status and what needs a later authorized run or external check.
A no-change decision may stay short: name the existing rule, eval, or artifact that already owns the mechanism. Do not mutate artifacts to make a decision look substantial.
Name the abstract dimension behind an example, such as current-slice
blocker, artifact freshness, or benchmark completeness. Do not copy
grader wording or prompt literals into skill text or self-authored assertions;
keep a concrete phrase only as a labeled example.
Failure Classification
Before treating a surprising, repeated, tool-related, artifact-related, or transcript-contradicted failure as a skill defect, classify it as one of:
- skill contract gap;
- reference reachability or answer-time salience gap;
- eval prompt, assertion, fixture, or delivery-mode gap;
- measurement, recording, or proof-transport gap;
- invocation, authority, or represented-workspace mismatch;
- grader-boundary defect;
- run variance or noise.
Fix the owning boundary. Stop tightening skill prose when the evidence points elsewhere, when repeated wording-only edits leave the targeted failure unchanged, or when the same failure moves to another case after each targeted fix. A moving failure is one mechanism, not per-case gaps: if repeated runs show only low-frequency scatter, classify it as run variance, prompt or runner leakage, or measurement noise and stop editing prose; if they show a stable mechanism, fix its broad owner once.
Two subtypes recur:
authority-state collapse: distinct states were silently promoted into one another. Separate the selected deliverable, action authority, artifact lifecycle (create, track, stage, commit, release-note, publish, execute), bound identity, minimum proof, and active stop condition. Permission, capability, relevance, a conventional path, or tracked status does not select the next transition. Fix only the missing owner and leave skills that already govern the transition unchanged.delivery-mode reclassification: a response-only or supplied-state prompt was answered as a read-only, blocked, or chat-only phase, or expectations demand reads, writes, or commits the prompt forbids. Fix the owning boundary: the prompt's mode marker, the expectation wording (the action the response describes), or a package rule that keeps the phase's obligations under response-only delivery. The runner'svalidatedelivery-mode warnings flag the expectation side.
Read references/evidence-and-failure-classification.md when the decision
depends on session history, relayed or delegated analysis, represented
workflow state, structured public output, runner affordances, or artifact
capture. When delegated review, extraction, or benchmark analysis feeds a
tracked decision, ask the delegate for evidence, unsupported claims, and
surfaces that must not change.
Contract Value Test
Before retaining an existing field, ledger, fixed output shape, hash, mandatory review count, or eval assertion, ask whether it prevents a demonstrated failure, provides state that cannot be reconstructed at the point of use, feeds a real machine consumer, or makes a material acceptance criterion observable. Existing prose and a currently passing assertion are not retention reasons. When none applies, remove it, make it risk-conditional, or keep it internal, and preserve the underlying safety or correctness invariant with a replacement eval or an explicit accepted loss of discrimination.
Improvement Report Intake
An improvement report from earlier work is evidence, not a change list.
Accept, narrow, park, or reject each proposal on its own; a proposal without
a demonstrated failure that a capable agent actually makes is not accepted
because the report is confident. Apply the contract value test per proposal,
and prefer editing or replacing an existing rule to adding one. An addition
to an always-loaded file names what it replaces or deletes, or cites the
evidence that no existing rule covers the failure; a batch of proposals that
only adds is itself a signal to consolidate first. Report back which
proposals were applied, narrowed, parked, or rejected, so the maintainer sees
the discarded ones. Read references/improvement-report.md when writing such
a report or applying one.
Change Selection
Make the smallest coupled change that closes the contract gap:
SKILL.md: invariants, scope boundaries, stop gates, and short decision rules that must be visible whenever the skill is active.references/: conditional procedures, checklists, domain variants, examples, and tool contracts, each routed fromSKILL.mdwith an explicit read-when condition.scripts/or structured gates: constraints that documentation alone has repeatedly failed to enforce.evals/<skill-name>/evals.json: discriminating pressure for the changed behavior, in the same change set.README.mdandCHANGELOG.md: only when they describe the changed behavior. Record notable work under## [Unreleased]; never bumpversionwithout an explicit release instruction.- frontmatter
description: trigger conditions only, never workflow steps.
When moving, condensing, or restating rules, preserve modality, exceptions, exact paths, commands, field names, local anchors, absence statuses, and proof boundaries; then audit the body, references, evals, README, and changelog for duplicate or stale authority, and add eval pressure for the moved rule's reachability and for over-compression.
SKILL.md size is a quality surface: every always-loaded word costs salience
and eval tokens. Move conditional detail out when it hides activation, scope,
stop gates, or load-bearing invariants, and delete rules that fail the
contract value test, repeat another statement in the package, or only record
session history. Do not move a load-bearing always-applicable invariant out
merely to reach a size target. Promote a single sampled case, or a reference
rule after one miss, into SKILL.md only on multiple independent evidence or
user-approved scope, and then only as one concise invariant.
When a with_skill regression lands on rules the skill still states but
generated or shared blocks now push down the file, test placement before
adding a contract: a minimal relocation or a one-sentence restatement of the
obligation near the top, never a hand edit of the generated blocks, checked by
an authorized partial diagnostic on the regressed cases, with variance and
grader causes kept open. Revert a restatement the diagnostic does not move and
report the placement question to the maintainer instead of trying another
wording.
A size-only cleanup does not prove behavior improved; without an authorized
post-edit run, report the behavioral effect Unproven.
Eval Quality And Proof
Read references/eval-quality-and-proof.md before changing eval prompts,
assertions, fixtures, or suite coverage, and before interpreting a benchmark
or deciding on a rerun. Validate, run, grade, and report evals only through
skills/skill-eval/scripts/eval_runner.py as the skill-eval skill defines.
Always:
- never hand-run and self-grade a cell;
- never launch a fresh eval run without explicit user authorization;
- do not launch a run that has no pre-registered question to answer;
- do not send private skill packages, eval content, outputs, or session excerpts to an external agent or hosted service without explicit user or project authorization;
- a run predating the latest relevant skill, assertion, prompt, fixture, or proof-path edit is not closing evidence for that state;
- keep the official aggregate unchanged when recording a diagnostic corrected reading;
- finish
REVIEW REQUIREDanomaly adjudication before a final commit or closure handoff; - do not commit generated eval workspaces unless explicitly requested.
Diagnostic And Safety Findings
For a security analyzer, policy scanner, trust review, credential-handling
warning, or another source-boundary-sink finding, read
references/diagnostic-and-safety-findings.md before choosing prose.
Closure
Before reporting a tracked change complete:
- Audit the changed rule against activation, workflow, output contracts, examples, references, evals, README, and changelog text for stale or contradictory obligations.
- Confirm the cited proof ran after the last relevant edit, or state the
exact absence status (
evals not run,Unproven, or equivalent). - Keep changelog text to the final durable behavior, validation, and honest proof status; iteration ledgers, intermediate scores, failed hypotheses, and local run directories stay out.
Does 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.

