Use skill-review

Audit an existing Agent Skill folder (SKILL.md plus its scripts, references and evals) for Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Kiro or Antigravity, and return a READY /…

Audit an existing Agent Skill folder (SKILL.md plus its scripts, references and evals) for Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Kiro or Antigravity, and return a READY / FIX FIRST / REWRITE verdict with severity-tagged findings across five areas — whether a router would pick it and whether it collides with a sibling, portability, safety (mapped to the OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10), structure, and eval coverage — backed by a stdlib lint script for the mechanical checks.

Reach for it when the user says "review this skill", "is my SKILL.md any good", "why doesn't my skill trigger", "is this skill safe to install", or wants a skill checked before sharing or publishing it.

Install it

npx skilldrop-cli install skill-review                 # Claude Code, your user folder
npx skilldrop-cli install skill-review --project       # Claude Code, this repo
npx skilldrop-cli install skill-review --ide cursor    # or kiro, codex, antigravity, copilot

It is part of the Skill engineering pack: --pack skill-engineering installs it with its neighbours.

It ships scripts, so it needs Python 3 (standard library only, nothing to install). What they may touch is declared in its manifest.

Ask for it

Say it the way you would to a colleague. Requests like these route to it:

• "Review this SKILL.md before I share it with my team"
• "My skill never triggers in Codex. Can you audit the folder and tell me why?"
• "Is this third-party skill safe to install? Check its scripts and instructions"
• "Lint my agent skill and give me a ready or not verdict"
• "Check whether my Claude Code skill will work in Copilot and Kiro too"

Requests like these belong to a different skill, so it shouldn't answer them:

• "Write a new skill that turns support tickets into a weekly digest"
• "Generate eval cases for my existing skill so I can catch regressions"
• "Audit our repo's AGENTS.md; agents keep running commands that don't exist"

If another skill answers instead, ask for this one by name: "use skill-review".

Check what you get

A good result:

• The verdict follows the rules in step 9, and the counts in the verdict line match the findings below it.
• Lint output is pasted verbatim, and every lint ERROR either appears as a finding or is explained away in one line.
• Every finding has a location and a concrete fix. "Improve the description" is not a fix. The rewritten sentence is.
• Collision findings name the sibling and the query that would route wrongly.
• Safety findings carry an AST ID and say what the line makes the agent do, not just which pattern matched.
• Judgment goes beyond the lint. At least one finding, or an explicit "nothing beyond the lint", covers what the regexes can't see: routing, paraphrased safety issues, steps that don't decide.
• It reviews the skill, not the task. Whether release notes should exist is out of scope. Whether this skill writes them reliably is the job.

See a worked example

• meeting notes review

Use something else when

• Writing a new skill from a task description: use skill-author
• Adding a skill to the skilldrop catalogue itself, which has its own manifest and validate.py rules: follow that repo's AGENTS.md and run python3 validate.py
• Generating more eval cases for a skill whose only gap is coverage: use eval-harness-generator
• Reviewing a repo's always-on AGENTS.md policy file: use agents-md-generator
• Threat-modelling the agent deployment that runs skills (its tools, data and egress): use agent-threat-model
• Critiquing an ordinary document such as an ADR or design doc: use doc-critique

Next

• SKILL.md, the instructions the agent reads
• Its page on the site
• Related: agent-threat-model, agents-md-generator, doc-critique, eval-harness-generator, skill-author

Edit this page on GitHub · View source