agentleFS
MongoDBKnown publishermongodb/agent-skills/tools/review-skill/SKILL.md

review-skill

Skill190 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise SMEs on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent Skill.

  • Pipes a download into a shell
  • Installs packages

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 10 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 10

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Follow every step in order.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Check for saved configuration:

    line 24
  3. Very specific:

    If not found, search common locations (/usr/local/bin, /opt/homebrew/bin, ~/go/bin).

    line 59
  4. Very specific:

    If --version is not at least v1.5.1, help the user upgrade with brew upgrade skill-validator or go install …

    line 63
  5. Distinctive:

    Do NOT proceed until this succeeds.

    line 67
  6. Very specific:

    If LLM_SCORING=true, verify the Claude CLI is available:

    line 71
  7. Distinctive:

    If not found, tell the user to install Claude Code:

    line 77
  8. Distinctive:

    Other platforms: follow the Claude Code quickstart guide

    line 80
  9. Distinctive:

    Do NOT proceed with LLM scoring until this succeeds.

    line 84
  10. Very specific:

    Ask the user for the path to the skill they want to review, unless they have already provided it.

    line 101
  11. Very specific:

    If SKILL.md does not exist at the given path, tell the user this is not a valid skill directory and ask them to provide the correct path.

    line 108
  12. Distinctive:

    Run the full check suite:

    line 113
  13. Very specific:

    Read the SKILL.md and any reference files, then evaluate each check below.

    line 134
  14. Very specific:

    If LLM_SCORING=false, skip to Step 6.

    line 150
  15. Very specific:

    If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Run LLM Scoring" and "Interpret LLM Scores" sections of references/llm-scoring.md.

    line 152
  16. Very specific:

    If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Full Review Summary" section of references/llm-scoring.md.

    line 158
  17. Very specific:

    If LLM_SCORING=false, present structural result, content review result, areas to address, and a self-assessment checklist using the scoring …

    line 162

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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.

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

Review Skill Workflow

You are helping an SME review an Agent Skill before publishing. This is a multi-step process: determine environment, verify prerequisites, run structural validation, review content, optionally run LLM scoring, and interpret results. Follow every step in order.

Step 0: Determine Environment

Check for saved configuration:

cat ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml 2>/dev/null

If the state file exists with prereqs_passed: true, offer:

Found saved settings — configured for [full/structural-only] reviews.

  1. Continue with saved settings — skip to Step 2
  2. Re-run prerequisite checks
  3. Change environment — switch between full and structural-only

Option 1: read llm_scoring from the file and skip to Step 2. Options 2-3: continue below.

If no state file exists, or the user chose to re-check/change, ask:

LLM scoring evaluates content quality across multiple dimensions.

  1. Yes, run LLM scoring — full review with LLM scoring
  2. No, skip LLM scoring — structural validation only

Option 1: set LLM_SCORING=true. Option 2: set LLM_SCORING=false. Run Step 1a only, then jump to Step 2.

Step 1: Verify Prerequisites

1a. Check for skill-validator binary

skill-validator --version

If not found, search common locations (/usr/local/bin, /opt/homebrew/bin, ~/go/bin). If found but not on PATH, tell the user. If not found anywhere, follow references/install-skill-validator.md.

If --version is not at least v1.5.1, help the user upgrade with brew upgrade skill-validator or go install github.com/agent-ecosystem/skill-validator/cmd/skill-validator@latest.

Do NOT proceed until this succeeds.

1b. Check for claude CLI (LLM scoring only)

If LLM_SCORING=true, verify the Claude CLI is available:

claude --version

If not found, tell the user to install Claude Code:

The user must authenticate by running claude interactively before continuing.

Do NOT proceed with LLM scoring until this succeeds.

Save state after prerequisites pass

Persist state so future runs skip this step. Replace <true or false> with the actual LLM_SCORING value:

mkdir -p ~/.config/skill-validator
cat > ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml << 'EOF'
prereqs_passed: true
llm_scoring: <true or false>
EOF

Step 2: Locate the Skill

Ask the user for the path to the skill they want to review, unless they have already provided it. Verify the path contains a SKILL.md file:

ls <path>/SKILL.md

If SKILL.md does not exist at the given path, tell the user this is not a valid skill directory and ask them to provide the correct path.

Step 3: Run Structural Validation

Run the full check suite:

skill-validator check <path>

Capture the exit code:

Exit codeMeaning
0Clean — no errors or warnings
1Errors found — must fix before publishing
2Warnings only — review but not blocking
3CLI/usage error — check the command

Exit 0: proceed. Exit 2: note warnings, proceed. Exit 1: list errors — these are blocking. The user must fix them before the skill can be published. Do NOT proceed to LLM scoring if exit code is 1.

Step 4: Content Review

Read the SKILL.md and any reference files, then evaluate each check below. Report which checks pass and which do not, with specific details on what is missing.

CheckCriteria
ExamplesDoes the skill provide examples of expected inputs and outputs?
Edge casesDoes the skill document common edge cases or failure modes?
Scope-gatingDoes the skill define when to stop/continue, prerequisites, and conditions for branching paths?
MongoDB data accessIf the skill needs MongoDB contextual data, does it instruct agents to use the MCP server for auth and tool calls? Skip if not applicable.

Flag any failing checks as areas the SME should address. These are not blocking but should be resolved before publishing for best results.

Step 5: LLM Scoring and Interpretation

If LLM_SCORING=false, skip to Step 6.

If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Run LLM Scoring" and "Interpret LLM Scores" sections of references/llm-scoring.md.

Step 6: Present the Review Summary

If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Full Review Summary" section of references/llm-scoring.md. Include any failing content review checks from Step 4 in the action items.

If LLM_SCORING=false, present structural result, content review result, areas to address, and a self-assessment checklist using the scoring dimensions from assets/report.md. Note that LLM scoring was skipped; advise re-running with LLM scoring enabled or self-assessing against the report dimensions.

Example Review Summary Structure

Structure the final summary with these sections in order:

  1. Structural validation — pass/fail with errors or warnings
  2. SKILL.md scores — overall and per-dimension table
  3. Reference scores — per-file table with overall and lowest dimension
  4. Novelty assessment — mean novelty vs threshold of 3; list novel_info per file for SME verification
  5. Action items — prioritized list of what to fix
  6. Recommendation — ready to publish / minor revisions / significant rework

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

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.