Ready to supercharge your AI agents?

Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.

README Updater · bluelovers | DecimalAI

bluelovers/readme-updater

SkillScore57Maintained

Analyze monorepo or single projects, check and update README documentation. Use when users request (1) Update README, (2) Check README completeness, (3) "更新 README", (4) "檢查說明文件", (5) Documentation review. Supports docs directory references and sub-package README checks.

Documentationby bluelovers

Links this skill to your agents and keeps it current with the author’s updates.

Automatic

Doc Ops pack

1 · One-time — install the CLI (docs ↗)

pip install decimalai

2 · Get the skill — writes .claude/skills/bluelovers-readme-updater/SKILL.md

decimalai skills pull bluelovers-readme-updater --out .claude/skills/

No CLI? Get the same file — curl · raw file

curl -fsSL --create-dirs -o .claude/skills/bluelovers-readme-updater/SKILL.md https://app.decimal.ai/s/bluelovers-readme-updater/SKILL.md

Raw file: /s/bluelovers-readme-updater/SKILL.md ↗ · machine-readable summary at /s/bluelovers-readme-updater.json ↗

In productionGlobal

how this skill behaves on real traffic · last 30 days

Runs

all versions · 30d

Anonymized aggregate across every org using this skill — proof from real production use, not a demo.

Does this skill help? · Benchmark: with vs. withoutsign in to run this on your agents

22 test cases from the publisher’s eval.yaml · each run twice on gemini-3.6-flash — with the skill injected, then without · last run 56d ago

Yes — +27% lift · at higher cost+50% tokens0% turns68% of whole cases pass with skill (15/22)

Test case	Without → With	Effect	Δ tokens	Δ turns
case-04	✗→✓	▲ Improved	83%	0%
case-05	✗→✓	▲ Improved	33%	0%
case-07	✗→✓	▲ Improved	55%	0%
case-13	✗→✓	▲ Improved	47%	0%
case-18	✗→✓	▲ Improved	50%	0%

Showing 5 of 22 cases

SkillSafety

✓ 3 of 3 passed

Code scan15 of 15 checks clean

0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/1/2026

live_secretremote_code_executionreverse_shelldata_exfiltrationssrf_metadataagent_snoopinganti_refusaldestructive_commandsobfuscated_unicodeunicode_homoglyphopaque_blobsuspicious_urltool_overreachtrigger_abuseprompt_injection_phrasing

IntentSafe

LLM judge · does the skill do what it claims

ContentClean

LLM judge · policy & harmful-content review

Source

Imported

bluelovers / ai-agents-profile

skills/readme-updater/SKILL.md

View on GitHub ↗

Imported 8/1/2026Version v1

Skill contents

SKILL.md

README Updater

Analyze project structure, check README completeness, and provide updates.

Workflow

Analyze project structure - Determine if monorepo or single project
Collect project info - Read configs, docs, and code structure
Analyze existing README - Check against standard sections
Check sub-packages - For monorepos, verify each package's README
Generate report - List missing/outdated sections
Apply updates - After user confirmation

Project Analysis

Detect Monorepo

Check for:

packages/ or apps/ directories
workspaces field in package.json
lerna.json or pnpm-workspace.yaml

Collect Information

| Source | Extract | |--------|---------| | package.json / pyproject.toml | Name, description, version | | docs/ directory | Architecture, API docs, guides | | Code structure | Main directories, core modules, entry points | | Sub-packages | Names, purposes, dependencies, README status |

README Standard Sections

Required

Title & Introduction - Clear name, one-line description, badges
Features - Main functionality, advantages
Installation - Requirements, steps, dependencies
Usage - Basic examples, common use cases
API Documentation - Main APIs or links to docs
Configuration - Options, environment variables, examples

Monorepo Handling

Root README

Explain overall project architecture
List all sub-packages with purposes
Provide monorepo development guide
Describe package dependencies

Sub-package README

Each should include:

Package name and purpose
Installation (from monorepo or standalone)
Usage examples
API docs or links
Relationships with other packages

docs Directory Integration

If docs/ exists:

README should contain overview & quick start
Link to detailed docs for in-depth content
Avoid duplication

Example documentation section:

markdown
## Documentation

- [Architecture](./docs/architecture.md)
- [API Reference](./docs/api.md)
- [Configuration Guide](./docs/configuration.md)

Output Format

Generate analysis report:

markdown
# README Analysis Report

## Project Type
- [x] Monorepo / [ ] Single Project

## Root README Status

### ✓ Complete
- Title & Introduction
- Features

### ✗ Missing or Outdated
- Installation (version outdated)
- Sub-packages list (missing)

## Sub-Packages Status

| Package | README Exists | Completeness | Issues |
|---------|---------------|--------------|--------|
| @scope/core | ✓ | 90% | Missing config section |
| @scope/utils | ✓ | 60% | Missing usage examples |
| @scope/cli | ✗ | 0% | README not found |

## Suggested Updates

### 1. Add Project Architecture Section
[Example content...]

## docs Directory

- `docs/architecture.md` - Architecture overview
- `docs/api.md` - API documentation

Recommend adding documentation index to README.

Critical Constraints

Consistency - All READMEs use same format style
Traditional Chinese - Use Taiwan terminology for descriptions
Key terms - Add English in parentheses for clarity: 快取 (Cache)
Code examples - Keep original language, add bilingual comments
Link validity - Ensure internal links point to correct files
Version info - Match version numbers with package.json
Avoid duplication - Link to docs instead of repeating content

Generic Sections Constraint

不主動添加的章節

當 README 中不存在以下概念時，除非使用者明確要求，否則不應寫入：

## author - 作者資訊
## 相容性 - Compatibility（如 Node.js 版本要求）
## 貢獻 - Contributing（如 "歡迎提交 Issue 和 Pull Request!"）
## 授權 - License（如 "ISC License"）

判斷邏輯

檢查現有 README
    │
    ▼
該章節是否存在？
    │
    ├─ 是 → 保留原有內容，可選擇性更新
    │
    └─ 否 → 不主動添加，除非使用者明確要求

範例

markdown
# 錯誤示範（不應主動添加）

## author
John Doe

## 相容性
- Node.js >= 12

## 貢獻
歡迎提交 Issue 和 Pull Request！

## 授權
ISC License

markdown
# 正確做法

若使用者要求更新 README：
- 先分析現有內容
- 僅補充缺少的核心章節（如 Installation、Usage）
- 不添加上述通用章節，除非明確要求

Example Workflow

User: Update README

1. Analyze structure → Monorepo detected (packages/ exists)
2. Collect info → Read package.json, scan docs/, list packages
3. Analyze root README → Missing architecture section, outdated installation
4. Check sub-packages → core: complete, utils: missing examples, cli: no README
5. Provide suggestions → List needed content with examples
6. Execute updates → After user confirmation

Illustrative Want to see what bluelovers/readme-updater would put in front of your model? Preview the rendered body and check its trigger phrases — no LLM call, no signup.

Latest benchmark · publisher runVerified

8/3/2026, 04:33 UTC · 22 cases

Lift

+27%

68% vs 41%

Agent turns

1.0 vs 1.0

Tokens

+50%

2,620.68 vs 1,752.45

fail → pass · 6pass → pass · 9fail → fail · 7

Per-case results (22)

Case	Status	Duration (ms)			Turns			Tokens			Tool calls
Case	Status	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ
case-01 Can you analyze my repository's documentation and generate an analysis report? I need you to check whether it's a monorepo or single project, review our root README and any sub-package READMEs against standard documentation sections, list missing or outdated parts, check our docs directory, and present a structured markdown report with a sub-package breakdown table and suggested additions. Please present the evaluation report first before making any file updates.	fail→fail	2,785	3,299	+18%	1	1	0%	382	1,631	+327%	0	0	—
case-02 Please inspect our codebase and evaluate our project documentation completeness. Provide a detailed assessment report breaking down the repository structure type, what sections are missing or complete in the main README, a table summarizing each sub-package's README status and issues, and recommended section additions. Wait for my confirmation before actually applying any updates to the Markdown files.	fail→fail	2,004	2,723	+36%	1	1	0%	305	1,542	+406%	0	0	—
case-03 I need a complete health check on our project's documentation. Please audit the main README alongside all package READMEs in the codebase, identify missing critical sections or outdated links/versions, check how the docs folder is integrated, and output a markdown evaluation report listing complete/missing sections and sub-package coverage. Give me the breakdown report first so I can review the proposed changes.	fail→fail	20,351	3,019	-85%	1	1	0%	2,932	1,806	-38%	0	0	—
case-04 I am maintaining a single Node.js package repository with a minimal README containing only Title and Installation. Analyze what sections are missing and generate an update proposal. Make sure to suggest useful standard sections to complete the documentation.	fail→pass	13,663	13,101	-4%	1	1	0%	1,968	3,608	+83%	0	0	—
case-05 Here is my current README.md for a Python package: ```markdown # MyLib ## Installation pip install mylib ## 貢獻歡迎提交 Issue！ ``` Please analyze missing core sections and draft an update report.	fail→pass	12,187	9,641	-21%	1	1	0%	2,262	3,003	+33%	0	0	—
case-06 Audit our repository documentation. The repo contains a `pnpm-workspace.yaml` file and a `packages/` directory with `@core/db` and `@core/web`. Produce a README analysis report.	pass→pass	31,954	9,645	-70%	1	1	0%	3,189	3,123	-2%	0	0	—
case-07 We have a monorepo with sub-packages under `packages/`. Evaluate what standard information must be included in each sub-package's README.	fail→pass	13,038	13,038	0%	1	1	0%	2,310	3,571	+55%	0	0	—
case-08 Our repository has a comprehensive `docs/architecture.md` file (1000 lines). Should I copy the full architecture documentation directly into the root README.md to make it complete? Please provide recommendations for updating the README.	pass→pass	9,784	8,718	-11%	1	1	0%	1,825	2,862	+57%	0	0	—
case-09 Analyze my React component library README and generate a documentation report identifying missing Usage and Configuration details. Keep explanations clear for Taiwan developers.	pass→pass	14,942	11,083	-26%	1	1	0%	2,518	3,275	+30%	0	0	—
case-10 Here is my package.json and current README.md: `# Tool Simple CLI tool.` Please update my README.md file directly now.	fail→fail	5,787	7,896	+36%	1	1	0%	1,128	2,681	+138%	0	0	—
case-11 Check our package documentation consistency. Our `package.json` specifies version `2.4.0`, but the installation snippet in `README.md` references version `1.0.0`. Audit this issue and generate a report.	pass→pass	9,137	7,364	-19%	1	1	0%	1,766	2,691	+52%	0	0	—
case-12 Provide a suggested Usage section code example for a TypeScript utility package README as part of a documentation audit report.	fail→fail	10,851	8,754	-19%	1	1	0%	1,839	2,813	+53%	0	0	—
case-13 Review our monorepo sub-package `@scope/logger`. What specific relationship and installation details should be detailed in `@scope/logger/README.md`?	fail→pass	14,897	11,650	-22%	1	1	0%	2,368	3,474	+47%	0	0	—
case-14 Please analyze our README.md and update it. Specifically, please add an author section with my contact info, along with missing core usage examples.	fail→fail	3,153	1,892	-40%	1	1	0%	509	1,549	+204%	0	0	—
case-15 Perform a completeness check on our library README. It currently has Title, Features, Installation, and Usage, but lacks information on environment variables and options. Generate an analysis report.	pass→pass	13,177	6,606	-50%	1	1	0%	2,194	2,542	+16%	0	0	—
case-16 Audit our SDK documentation. The current README has installation and setup steps, but developers cannot find functions or class signatures. Generate a section report.	pass→pass	13,753	9,889	-28%	1	1	0%	2,321	3,053	+32%	0	0	—
case-17 Check our open source project README for developer setup instructions. It currently tells users how to run `npm install` for production, but has no build or test commands for local development.	fail→fail	7,846	2,461	-69%	1	1	0%	1,522	1,520	-0%	0	0	—
case-18 Evaluate how our project's `CHANGELOG.md` file should be referenced in the main `README.md` file during a documentation audit.	fail→pass	12,815	12,627	-1%	1	1	0%	2,429	3,655	+50%	0	0	—
case-19 Inspect a repository that contains only a single `package.json` at root without `packages/`, `apps/`, or `workspaces`. How should the project type be classified in the README Analysis Report?	fail→pass	10,298	3,048	-70%	1	1	0%	1,750	1,874	+7%	0	0	—
case-20 Here is a list of git commits since tag v1.0.0: - feat: add user auth - fix: token expiration bug - docs: update API url Please generate formatted Markdown release notes for version v1.1.0.	pass→pass	3,717	4,274	+15%	1	1	0%	756	2,029	+168%	0	0	—
case-21 Please write JSDoc comments for this TypeScript function: ```ts export function calculateTax(amount: number, rate: number): number { return amount * rate; } ```	pass→pass	5,778	4,280	-26%	1	1	0%	1,090	2,052	+88%	0	0	—
case-22 Write a 300-word marketing launch blog post for our new open-source developer tool 'FastCache', highlighting its speed and ease of setup.	pass→pass	7,442	11,348	+52%	1	1	0%	1,191	3,301	+177%	0	0	—

These cases were also screened by the skill’s intent / safety pass.See the Trust review ↗Reproduce this benchmark in Colab ↗

How this skill was measured

DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.

Model measured: gemini-3.6-flash
Graded by: gemini-3.6-flash
Grading method: judged
Verification: verified
Pass rate without the skill: 40.9%
Pass rate with the skill: 68.2%
Cases attempted: 22
Cases counted toward lift: 22
Cases that regressed: 1
Skill version measured: v1
Run completed: 8/3/2026, 04:33 UTC

Measured example — same prompt, with vs. without the skill · from the benchmark run · case case-04

Prompt

I am maintaining a single Node.js package repository with a minimal README containing only Title and Installation. Analyze what sections are missing and generate an update proposal. Make sure to suggest useful standard sections to complete the documentation.

Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.

Show both answers

SkillScore blends 4 signals2 of 4 complete

BenchmarkPass rate WITH skill on a verified run68

Live evalNeeds ≥10 evaluated traces in 30 days

AI ratingNeeds ≥10 rated traces

AdoptionBreadth of real use across orgs40

Efficiency · separate axis (at equal correctness)+0% turns+48% tokens

Shown for transparency; not credited unless a verified run shows no correctness regression.

Backed by 2 of 4 signals — each added signal makes the score more robust.

Verified on gemini-3.6-flash · re-tested 55 days ago

Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.