agentleFS
kensauruskensaurus/cursor-kenji/skills/audit-skill-conflicts/SKILL.md

audit-skill-conflicts

Skill9 starsChanged 42 days agoMITView on GitHub

Read-only audit of a skill pack for contradictory directives, overlapping triggers, stale cross-refs, and context bloat. Use when "audit my skills", "conflicting skills", "wrong skill triggered", or after adding a batch. Authoring → meta-skill-creator.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read-only. Most other audit-* skills inspect an app or repository you ship.

    line 18
  2. Very specific:

    Do not fire for "create a skill" → meta-skill-creator.

    line 42
  3. Very specific:

    Do not fire for "audit my app's UI" → audit-ux / audit-responsive / audit-ui-states (this skill would *flag* that cluster).

    line 43
  4. Distinctive:

    If a harness can show which skill the agent selects for a phrase, feed realistic user lines and record matches.

    line 128

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

audit-skill-conflicts — Pack coherence, not product QA

Degree of freedom: MIXED — Phases 0–1 [HIGH freedom]; Phase 2 routing dry-run [LOW freedom] — skip explicitly if the harness cannot show selection. The retired audit-responsive-layout name appears in your report only as a dangling-reference finding, never as a handoff.

Read-only. Most other audit-* skills inspect an app or repository you ship. This one inspects the skill pack it lives in.

npm run validate:skills checks each file in isolation (name = dir, description ≤320, body <500). It cannot see two skills giving opposite advice, six descriptions all matching "audit my UI", a handoff to a renamed skill, or a greedy description that fires constantly and burns context.

A skill collection is a system. Its failure modes are between files.

Present findings. Rewrite nothing until approved. Highest-leverage first: description rewrites (routing) — they change which skill fires without changing any skill's behavior.

This skill vs neighbors

SkillOwns
audit-skill-conflicts (this)Cross-skill contradictions, routing, dangling refs, bloat
meta-skill-creatorHow to write a SKILL.md
validate:skills (script)Per-file spec lint — not semantic coherence
enhance-agent-guardrailsGuardrails in an app repo, not this pack
plan-docs-syncDocs vs code drift — not skill vs skill

Do not fire for "create a skill" → meta-skill-creator. Do not fire for "audit my app's UI" → audit-ux / audit-responsive / audit-ui-states (this skill would flag that cluster).

How to reason

  1. Observe — quote both descriptions (or rule vs skill) that appear to collide
  2. Interpret — can one user phrase honor both, or do they contradict / steal routing?
  3. Classify — contradiction / trigger overlap / stale ref / bloat / correct carve-out
  4. Severity — opposite stance on the same situation, or a greedy description, first

Worked example

Observe: "audit my UI" matches audit-ux, audit-responsive, audit-ui-states with no carve-out in two of the three descriptions. Interpret: the agent cannot know whether to score heuristics, breakpoints, or empty states. Classify: trigger overlap without disambiguation. Severity: major — wrong skill fires; wasted context. Fix: each description names when it wins (layout vs heuristics vs states).


Phase 0 — Load the corpus [HIGH freedom]

Enumerate:

  • skills/*/SKILL.md and skills-cursor/*/SKILL.md
  • commands/*.md and commands-portable/*.md
  • agents/*.md
  • rules/*.mdc and .cursor/rules/*.mdc — highest-risk. Always-on rules silently override a skill's intent.

For each skill extract: name, description (routing surface), claimed triggers, cross-referenced skills, core directives (read-only vs apply-fixes, plan-first vs edit, hard always/never). One index. Compare the set, not pairwise guesswork.

House skill name in this repo is audit-responsive. audit-responsive-layout is retired. /responsive-audit is a valid command alias, but bare/backticked responsive-audit is not a skill handoff.


Phase 1 — Conflict and drift [HIGH freedom]

Contradictory directives — Opposite behavior for an overlapping situation (e.g. "fix inline" vs "never edit in the audit pass"). Rules-vs-skill is worst. List every pair that cannot both be honored.

Trigger overlap / mis-routing — Phrases that match many skills. Example cluster in this pack:

"audit my UI" → audit-ux, audit-uiux-design-system, audit-responsive, audit-ui-states, thirdparty-web-interface-guidelines, plan-uiux-unification

Overlap is fine if each description carves out when it, specifically, applies. Flag members that do not disambiguate.

Duplicated guidance — The same block copy-pasted across skills. Drift risk. Name an extraction target (shared rule or one canonical skill).

Stale cross-references — Handoff to a renamed/removed skill. Resolve every backtick skill name against the live directory list.

Scope gaps & double-coverage — Two skills claiming the same task with no delineation, or a chain step no skill owns. This is pack coverage, not product gaps.

Context-budget bloat — Over-broad descriptions (narrow skill, greedy triggers): descriptions ride in every request, so they are the always-on cost. Bodies load only on trigger and cache well; flag a body for dated instructions, not for length alone. User-initiated rituals should carry disable-model-invocation: true (drops the description from the roster; Cursor and Claude Code both honor it); reference-only skills user-invocable: false (Claude Code).

Convention drift — Family-placement (audit-and-fix under enhance-* is OK when called out, like enhance-email-deliverability). Inconsistent read-only/plan-only semantics inside a family. Description-voice drift.


Phase 2 — Routing dry-run (optional) [LOW freedom — skip honestly]

If a harness can show which skill the agent selects for a phrase, feed realistic user lines and record matches. Ambiguous phrases that should map to one skill but match several confirm Phase 1 empirically.

Cursor / Claude Code usually do not expose selection. Skip this phase explicitly; static description analysis still stands. Do not pretend a dry-run ran.


Definition of Done

  • Corpus indexed: skills + commands + subagents + rules
  • Contradictory-directive pairs listed (rules-vs-skill included)
  • Trigger-overlap clusters identified; carve-outs checked
  • Duplicated blocks + extraction targets named
  • Cross-refs resolved; dangling listed (incl. retired audit-responsive-layout and bare responsive-audit skill handoffs)
  • Double-coverage and handoff gaps surfaced
  • Bloat / convention drift noted
  • Routing dry-run run or explicitly skipped
  • Nothing edited without approval

Self-critique before reporting [LOW freedom — do not skip]

  1. Quoted pair — every contradiction cites both texts
  2. Dry-run honesty — skipped if no harness; do not pretend it ran
  3. Name hygiene — retired audit-responsive-layout and bare responsive-audit skill handoffs listed; /responsive-audit command kept
  4. Right owner — how to write a skill → meta-skill-creator; how to upgrade prompts → enhance-skill-prompts
  5. Nothing rewritten until approved; description fixes first (routing)

Output format

  1. Conflict table — A | B (or rule) | type | why they can't coexist | severity
  2. Trigger-overlap clusters — phrase | skills | who should win | description fix
  3. Dangling references — skill | broken ref | correct target
  4. Coverage map — double-coverage + gaps
  5. Bloat / convention — item | issue | fix
  6. Fix plan — description rewrites first, then dedupe/extraction, then convention. Propose only.

Related

  • meta-skill-creator — write a new SKILL.md
  • enhance-skill-prompts — upgrade an existing skill's prompt (T1–T8), not its behavior
  • validate:skills — per-file spec after description edits
  • enhance-agent-guardrails — app-repo policy, not pack coherence
  • plan-docs-sync — docs vs code
  • audit-responsive / audit-ux / audit-ui-states — the UI-audit cluster this skill is expected to flag

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.