agentleFS
marticlimentmarticliment/UniGetUI/.agents/skills/translation-review/SKILL.md

translation-review

Skill27k starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Reviews UniGetUI .json language files for localization quality, detects parity issues, English-equal entries, wrong-script content, and cross-language outliers, then generates a dataset for LLM-assisted linguistic review. Use when the user asks to review translations, audit localization, inspect i18n or l10n quality, or validate language files.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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:

    Use this skill when you need a quality review of an existing UniGetUI translation, not just coverage, but correctness, language integrity, …

    line 8
  2. Very specific:

    If the script fails or the output is empty, validate the target JSON with pwsh ./scripts/translation/Verify-Translations.ps1 and rerun the …

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the flagged sections first: parity issues, English-equal entries, and wrong-script entries.

    line 33
  4. Very specific:

    Default output path: generated/translation-review/review.<lang>.md

    line 83
  5. Distinctive:

    Look for wrong language, suspiciously different meaning, missing words, or copied English that should probably be translated.

    line 96
  6. Distinctive:

    Use translation-status first if you need a coverage snapshot before reviewing quality.

    line 115
  7. Distinctive:

    Use translation-diff-export to produce a sparse patch for entries that need re-translation after review.

    line 116
  8. Distinctive:

    Use translation-diff-import to merge corrected entries back into the full language file.

    line 117

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

translation review

Use this skill when you need a quality review of an existing UniGetUI translation, not just coverage, but correctness, language integrity, and consistency against related languages.

Typical triggers: review translations, check translation quality, mistranslations, wrong language in translation, untranslated strings, localization QA, translation audit, spot-check a language file.

Scope

  • Mechanically detect placeholder, HTML-fragment, and newline mismatches.
  • Flag entries whose translation still equals the English source in a non-English language file.
  • Detect wrong-script entries for non-Latin languages such as ua, zh_CN, ar, ko, ja, and he.
  • Build a cross-language comparison table so the reviewing agent can identify outliers, suspicious wording, and wrong-language content.
  • The agent performs the final linguistic review using the generated report.

Prerequisites

  • PowerShell 7 (pwsh).

Scripts

  • scripts/review-translation-json.ps1: Generate the review dataset for one UniGetUI language JSON file.

Workflow

  1. Generate the review dataset for the target language.
  2. Confirm the output file exists and contains the expected flagged sections or JSON fields.
  3. If the script fails or the output is empty, validate the target JSON with pwsh ./scripts/translation/Verify-Translations.ps1 and rerun the review.
  4. Read the flagged sections first: parity issues, English-equal entries, and wrong-script entries.
  5. Spot-check the cross-language comparison table, focusing on labels, buttons, settings text, and error messages.
  6. Report findings inline with the English source text, observed problem, and suggested correction.

Usage

Generate a Markdown review report for French:

pwsh ./.agents/skills/translation-review/scripts/review-translation-json.ps1 \
  -TargetJson ./src/Languages/lang_fr.json \
  -Language fr

Generate a report for Ukrainian and include script-detection checks:

pwsh ./.agents/skills/translation-review/scripts/review-translation-json.ps1 \
  -TargetJson ./src/Languages/lang_ua.json \
  -Language ua

Generate a flagged-only JSON report with no cross-language table:

pwsh ./.agents/skills/translation-review/scripts/review-translation-json.ps1 \
  -TargetJson ./src/Languages/lang_de.json \
  -Language de \
  -OutputFormat Json \
  -FlaggedOnly

Optional parameters:

  • -NeutralJson — defaults to src/Languages/lang_en.json
  • -ComparisonLanguages — languages to include in the comparison table; defaults to other checked-in lang_*.json files
  • -OutputPath — defaults to generated/translation-review/review.<lang>.md
  • -OutputFormat — Markdown (default) or Json
  • -FlaggedOnly — skip the full cross-language table and emit only mechanically flagged entries

Output

The Markdown report is structured as:

  1. Summary
  2. Parity Issues
  3. English-Equal Entries
  4. Wrong Script
  5. Cross-Language Comparison

Default output path: generated/translation-review/review.<lang>.md

Agent Review Guidelines

Flagged sections

  • Parity issues: confirm whether the placeholder, tag, or newline mismatch is a genuine error or an acceptable localized variant.
  • English-equal entries: decide whether the English value is an acceptable technical or brand string, or whether it should be translated.
  • Wrong script: almost always an error for non-Latin languages. Verify against comparison languages and flag for re-translation when confirmed.

Cross-language comparison table

  • Sample at least 20–30 rows and prefer entries that look like UI labels, buttons, dialogs, settings descriptions, or error messages.
  • Look for wrong language, suspiciously different meaning, missing words, or copied English that should probably be translated.
  • Ignore obvious brand names and technical identifiers.

Output format for findings

Report each issue in this format:

**Source**: `Some English source text`
**Problem**: [describe the issue]
**Current value**: [the problematic translation]
**Suggested correction**: [corrected value, if confident]
**Confidence**: High / Medium / Low

Group findings by type: parity, English-equal, wrong language, wrong script, or other.

Integration with Other Skills

  • Use translation-status first if you need a coverage snapshot before reviewing quality.
  • Use translation-diff-export to produce a sparse patch for entries that need re-translation after review.
  • Use translation-diff-import to merge corrected entries back into the full language file.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Quiet since May.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 4 mentionsFeb 2026: 1 mentionMar 2026: 1 mentionApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 1 mentionJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 0 mentionsOct 2026: 0 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the marticliment/UniGetUI repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about marticliment/UniGetUI

The biggest 5 of 52 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 52

Talked about on YouTube, GitHub and Bluesky (52 times).

On YouTube · 25

20 more on YouTube

On GitHub · 18

13 more on GitHub

On Bluesky · 9

4 more on Bluesky
  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. Devolutions/UniGetUI★ 27k100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. gemwalletcom/wallet★ 343same 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.

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.