agentleFS
meteormeteor/agent-skills/.github/skills/skill-gap-audit/SKILL.md

skill-gap-audit

Skill10 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when auditing meteor/agent-skills for missing, incomplete, overlapping, or outdated coverage. Compares every distributable skill with a configurable Meteor checkout, changelog and release context, v3-docs, source, tests, and the latest committed audit baseline, then produces an evidence-backed report without editing skills.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    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. Distinctive:

    When the Meteor release process invokes this skill, start after its changelog and approved documentation gaps have been consolidated.

    line 32
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer a path supplied by the user or task.

    line 68
  3. Distinctive:

    Ask the user for a checkout path when discovery finds none or remains ambiguous.

    line 73
  4. Very specific:

    Read references/audit-method.md before gathering evidence.

    line 79
  5. Distinctive:

    Read the frontmatter description, tagline, kind, area, bundle membership, Meteor range, and documentation sync date.

    line 85
  6. Very specific:

    Read references/report-template.md before producing the report.

    line 119
  7. Distinctive:

    Every finding must include:

    line 121
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep uncertain findings separate from confirmed gaps.

    line 132
  9. Distinctive:

    When the user asks only for an audit, stop after the report and offer the prioritized findings for review.

    line 138
  10. Distinctive:

    When the same request explicitly asks to audit and fix:

    line 140
  11. Very specific:

    Ask before creating a Candidate skill or acting on an uncertain finding.

    line 145
  12. Distinctive:

    Keep each change traceable to its evidence and acceptance criteria.

    line 146
  13. Distinctive:

    Run the complete maintenance validation and report which findings were applied.

    line 147

≈ “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 Meteor skill gaps

Compare the published catalog with current Meteor documentation and implementation. Produce a prioritized maintenance report. Do not create or edit skills during the audit.

This workflow adapts Meteor's docs-gap and changelog skill patterns while keeping the checkout path, checked-out branch, release context, and comparison revisions configurable.

Inputs

Determine these inputs before analysis:

  • Agent-skills repository root.
  • Agent-skills target ref and commit SHA. A coordinated release supplies the freshly fetched release PR head for beta/RC or default branch for stable, with a clean worktree.
  • Meteor source checkout.
  • Audit mode: full catalog or incremental changes.
  • Meteor base and target Git revisions for an incremental audit.
  • Meteor version or release context when the audit targets a release.
  • Reviewed Meteor changelog, docs-gap report, and approved documentation changes when a coordinated release supplies them.
  • Optional previous committed audit record.
  • Optional output path. Return the report in the response when no path is requested.

Coordinated Meteor release audits

When the Meteor release process invokes this skill, start after its changelog and approved documentation gaps have been consolidated. Treat those artifacts as discovery and user-facing intent, then verify their claims against the release diff, current documentation, implementation, and tests. Do not copy core maintainer workflows into the public application-developer catalog.

The Meteor release commit may not exist yet during the first audit. In that case, include approved working-tree documentation changes, record the Meteor commit SHA and dirty state, and identify the audit as pre-publication. Before the Agent Skills tag is published, audit the exact Meteor release commit from a clean Agent Skills worktree pinned to the catalog commit being prepared for publication. If the first report is already committed, preserve it and create an incremental follow-up instead of rewriting it.

Pin the Agent Skills snapshot

For a coordinated release, require the caller to supply an Agent Skills target ref and commit SHA resolved after fetching the selected release branch: existing PR head for beta/RC, default branch for stable. Beta/RC audits do not require a merge; preserve the open PR and do not substitute its synthetic merge commit. Verify that the audit worktree is clean and that its HEAD equals the supplied SHA. Load this skill and inspect distributable content from that same worktree; do not load audit instructions from one revision while analyzing another.

Record the target ref, exact commit SHA, and clean state in the report. If the checkout is dirty, stale, or at a different commit, stop and ask the caller to provide a clean pinned worktree. This audit does not fetch, switch branches, or create worktrees on its own.

For a standalone audit without a supplied target, use the current HEAD, record its branch, SHA, and dirty state, and state that remote freshness was not established. Do not claim that it represents the latest published or default-branch catalog without evidence.

Resolve the Meteor checkout

  1. Prefer a path supplied by the user or task.
  2. Otherwise, use METEOR_CHECKOUT when it is set.
  3. Otherwise, inspect accessible workspace roots and direct sibling directories for candidates.
  4. Validate each candidate with git -C <path> rev-parse --show-toplevel and require v3-docs/, packages/, and tools/. Use Git remotes to distinguish meteor/meteor or a clear fork from unrelated repositories.
  5. Continue automatically only when one credible candidate remains. Report its resolved path, remote, branch, commit SHA, and dirty state.
  6. Ask the user for a checkout path when discovery finds none or remains ambiguous. Do not assume a home directory layout or clone without authorization.

The checkout can live anywhere accessible in the current environment. Do not store its machine-specific absolute path in committed skill content.

Audit method

Read references/audit-method.md before gathering evidence. It defines committed baselines, full, release, and incremental modes, changelog and release review, deep distributable-claim comparison, and source filtering.

Build the skill inventory

For every publishable folder under skills/:

  1. Read the frontmatter description, tagline, kind, area, bundle membership, Meteor range, and documentation sync date.
  2. List the outcomes and symptoms promised by SKILL.md.
  3. Map each promise to its supporting reference and evaluation case.
  4. Compare naming, classification, routing, structure, references, and case style with the closest neighboring skills. Treat useful local variation as intentional unless it conflicts with the repository contract or behavior.
  5. Note overlap with neighboring skills, promises without behavioral coverage, and classifications that do not match the skill's actual outcome or installation audience.
  6. Exclude folders beginning with _ and internal .github/skills/.

Classify findings

ClassificationMeaningNormal action
CoveredCurrent skill instructions and cases address the behaviorNo change
PartialSkill mentions it but lacks a decision rule, example, or evaluationExpand existing skill
OutdatedSkill conflicts with current documentation or implementationCorrect and retest
OverlapMultiple skills advertise the same request without clear routingNarrow descriptions
CandidateImportant repeatable workflow has no suitable skillPropose a skill
Documentation onlyUseful fact does not justify agent workflow guidanceLeave in docs
UncertainAvailable evidence is missing or contradictoryInvestigate and do not implement

Propose a new skill only when it meets the threshold in skill-maintenance. Prefer expanding an existing skill when its scope already owns the user outcome.

Prioritize

Use this order:

  1. Incorrect security, data-access, deployment, or migration guidance.
  2. Removed APIs and breaking behavior.
  3. Advertised capabilities with no instructions or acceptance case.
  4. New user-facing workflows with strong skill value.
  5. Routing overlap and near-miss failures.
  6. Helpful improvements that are not release blockers.

Report

Read references/report-template.md before producing the report.

Every finding must include:

  • Classification and priority.
  • Affected skill or proposed scope.
  • User impact.
  • Evidence path, revision, and relevant symbol or section.
  • Existing acceptance cases.
  • Recommended action and acceptance evidence.

For full and release audits, include a claim matrix covering every distributable skill. For incremental audits, include every changed claim plus all claims affected by the Meteor diff, even when the skill file itself did not change.

Keep uncertain findings separate from confirmed gaps. State why evidence is insufficient and what would resolve it.

Handoff to skill maintenance

The audit is read-only except for writing a report to a user-requested output path. Do not update skills, metadata, branches, or GitHub state during an audit-only request.

When the user asks only for an audit, stop after the report and offer the prioritized findings for review.

When the same request explicitly asks to audit and fix:

  1. Finish and preserve the audit report before editing.
  2. Read skill-maintenance.
  3. Implement only confirmed Partial, Outdated, or Overlap findings within the authorized scope.
  4. Ask before creating a Candidate skill or acting on an uncertain finding.
  5. Keep each change traceable to its evidence and acceptance criteria.
  6. Run the complete maintenance validation and report which findings were applied.

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.