Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →levnikolaevich/ln-61-skill-reviewer
Reviews standalone skills and their configured distribution surfaces before publication.
5 of 22 test cases passed with the skill.
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
Lift withheld: 7 comparable cases; this report requires 8.
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
During review of `skills/git-rebase-helper`, 15 checklist items were verified with concrete evidence (PROVEN), 10 items were determined non-applicable for static mode (CLEARED), 3 items were missing evidence (UNPROVEN), and 2 were in progress (PENDING). The author argues the ratio should be 15/30 because only PROVEN counts. How should the checklist completion ratio in section 5 (Completion) be calculated and reported? Format your output in 5 sections: Result, Scope, Evidence, Verification, Completion.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The checklist completion score includes CLEARED items in the numerator. | Passed | Passed |
| The completion section reports the score as Checklist: 25/30 complete. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Goal: Review skill quality and configured distribution surfaces without modifying repository or external state. Distinguish static contract assurance from observed execution behavior.
Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.
| Need | Preferred capability | Fallback |
|---|---|---|
| Repository scope and evidence | Native file search, focused reads, and Git diff | Equivalent read-only shell commands |
| Frontmatter and skill structure | Repository-defined or host-native skill validator | Manual YAML, path, naming, and repository-contract checks |
| Plugin integration | Repository-defined plugin validator plus manifest parsing | Manual manifest and applicable catalog comparison |
| Host discovery | Host-native validator for every configured distribution surface | Manual catalog, manifest, and source-path inspection |
| Current host rules | Official host documentation | Mark the claim UNVERIFIED when unavailable |
| Behavioral independence | Fresh subagent or clean context | Separate self-review passes with reduced-confidence disclosure |
Use external research only for current host behavior or a changing standard. Do not use web sources to override the repository's actual files, installed versions, or local validation output.
Tool absence is not itself a skill defect. Apply the documented fallback and use BLOCKED only when the missing capability prevents a reliable verdict.
name and description when that is the declared local convention rather than imposing it universally.BLOCKED outcome.test cases passed with the skill
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.