Skill Validator

Validate any skill against production-level quality criteria.

Validation Workflow

Phase 1: Gather Context

•Read the skill's SKILL.md completely
•
Identify skill type from frontmatter description:
- •Builder skill (creates artifacts)
- •Guide skill (provides instructions)
- •Automation skill (executes workflows)
- •Hybrid skill (combination)
•Read all reference files in references/ directory
•Check for assets/scripts directories

Phase 2: Apply Criteria

Evaluate against 7 criteria categories. Each criterion scores 0-3:

•0: Missing/Absent
•1: Present but inadequate
•2: Adequate implementation
•3: Excellent implementation

Criteria Categories

1. Structure & Anatomy (Weight: 15%)

Criterion	What to Check
SKILL.md exists	Root file present
Line count	<500 lines (context is precious)
Frontmatter	`name` and `description` present in YAML
Description quality	Triggers: when to use, what it does, key features
No extraneous files	No README.md, CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE in skill dir
Progressive disclosure	Details in `references/`, not bloated SKILL.md
Asset organization	Templates in `assets/`, scripts in `scripts/`

Fail condition: Missing SKILL.md or >800 lines = automatic fail

2. Content Quality (Weight: 20%)

Criterion	What to Check
Conciseness	No verbose explanations, context is public good
Imperative form	Instructions use "Do X" not "You should do X"
Appropriate freedom	Constraints where needed, flexibility where safe
Scope clarity	Clear what skill does AND does not do
No hallucination risk	No instructions that encourage making up info
Output specification	Clear expected outputs defined

3. User Interaction (Weight: 15%)

Criterion	What to Check
Clarification triggers	Asks questions before acting on ambiguity
Required vs optional	Distinguishes must-know from nice-to-know
Graceful handling	What to do when user doesn't answer
No over-asking	Doesn't ask obvious or inferrable questions
Context awareness	Uses available context before asking

Key pattern to look for:

markdown

## Required Clarifications
1. Question about X
2. Question about Y

## Optional Clarifications
3. Question about Z (if relevant)

4. Documentation & References (Weight: 15%)

Criterion	What to Check
Source URLs	Official documentation links provided
Reference files	Complex details in `references/` not main file
Fetch guidance	Instructions to fetch docs for unlisted patterns
Version awareness	Notes about checking for latest patterns
Example coverage	Good/bad examples for key patterns

Key pattern to look for:

markdown

| Resource | URL | Use For |
|----------|-----|---------|
| Official Docs | https://... | Complex cases |

5. Domain Standards (Weight: 15%)

Criterion	What to Check
Best practices	Follows domain conventions (e.g., WCAG, OWASP)
Enforcement mechanism	Checklists, validation steps, must-verify items
Anti-patterns	Lists what NOT to do
Quality gates	Output checklist before delivery

Key pattern to look for:

markdown

### Must Follow
- [ ] Requirement 1
- [ ] Requirement 2

### Must Avoid
- Antipattern 1
- Antipattern 2

6. Technical Robustness (Weight: 10%)

Criterion	What to Check
Error handling	Guidance for failure scenarios
Security considerations	Input validation, secrets handling if relevant
Dependencies	External tools/APIs documented
Edge cases	Common edge cases addressed
Testability	Can outputs be verified?

7. Maintainability (Weight: 10%)

Criterion	What to Check
Modularity	References are self-contained topics
Update path	Easy to update when standards change
No hardcoded values	Uses placeholders/variables where appropriate
Clear organization	Logical section ordering

Scoring Guide

Category Scores

Calculate each category score:

code

Category Score = (Sum of criterion scores) / (Max possible) * 100

Overall Score

code

Overall = Σ(Category Score × Weight)

Rating Thresholds

Score	Rating	Meaning
90-100	Production	Ready for wide use
75-89	Good	Minor improvements needed
60-74	Adequate	Functional but needs work
40-59	Developing	Significant gaps
0-39	Incomplete	Major rework required

Output Format

Generate validation report:

markdown

# Skill Validation Report: [skill-name]

**Rating**: [Production/Good/Adequate/Developing/Incomplete]
**Overall Score**: [X]/100

## Summary
[2-3 sentence assessment]

## Category Scores

| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Structure & Anatomy | X/100 | 15% | X |
| Content Quality | X/100 | 20% | X |
| User Interaction | X/100 | 15% | X |
| Documentation | X/100 | 15% | X |
| Domain Standards | X/100 | 15% | X |
| Technical Robustness | X/100 | 10% | X |
| Maintainability | X/100 | 10% | X |

## Critical Issues (if any)
- [Issue requiring immediate fix]

## Improvement Recommendations
1. **High Priority**: [Specific action]
2. **Medium Priority**: [Specific action]
3. **Low Priority**: [Specific action]

## Strengths
- [What skill does well]

Quick Validation Checklist

For rapid assessment, check these critical items:

• SKILL.md <500 lines
• Frontmatter has name + description
• No README.md/CHANGELOG.md in skill directory
• Has clarification questions for builder skills
• Has official documentation links
• Has enforcement checklist (if domain standards exist)
• Has output specification
• References exist for complex details

If 6+ checked: Likely Good or better If 4-5 checked: Likely Adequate If <4 checked: Needs significant work

Reference Files

File	When to Read
`references/detailed-criteria.md`	Deep evaluation of specific criterion
`references/scoring-examples.md`	Example validations for calibration
`references/improvement-patterns.md`	Common fixes for common issues

Usage Examples

Validate a skill

code

Validate the chatgpt-widget-creator skill against production criteria

Quick audit

code

Quick validation check on mcp-builder skill

Focused review

code

Check if skill-creator skill has proper user interaction patterns