geemus/audit-skills

Audit Skills

Produces a two-pass health report on the entire skill library: structural validation per skill, then cross-skill analysis covering trigger conflicts, redundancy, workflow gaps, and composition chains. All findings are formatted with format-review-comments. Minor issues are auto-fixed silently; everything else is reported.

Instructions

Setup

Read references/checks.md before beginning. It contains the authoritative check specifications, coverage map, and output format details referenced throughout these instructions.

Pass 1 — Structural Validation

Run structural checks on every skill. Discover all skills with:

Glob: .agents/skills/*/SKILL.md

For each skill found, perform the checks listed in references/checks.md under Structural Checks. Checks fall into two categories:

Auto-fix silently (do not report, apply the fix and move on):

• Leading or trailing whitespace in frontmatter string values
• Missing optional metadata fields (license, metadata.author, metadata.version)
• Minor formatting inconsistencies in the SKILL.md body (list indentation, blank lines)

Report as findings (everything else):

• name field absent or empty
• description field absent or empty
• name value does not match the parent directory name exactly
• description exceeds 1024 characters
• description does not open with an action verb in third person
• description does not include a "when to invoke" condition (Use when, TRIGGER when, or equivalent)
• Skill scope overlaps with another skill but lacks TRIGGER when / DO NOT TRIGGER when disambiguation lines
• Files in scripts/, references/, or assets/ that are not referenced anywhere in SKILL.md

If auto-fixes are applied, use the create-commit skill to stage and commit them before the final report. When fixes span multiple skills, use a single commit:

fix(<skill-name>): correct minor structural issues

(or fix: correct minor structural issues across N skills when fixes span multiple skills)

If no auto-fixes are needed, skip the intermediate commit.

Pass 2 — Cross-Skill Analysis

After structural validation, run the cross-skill checks listed in references/checks.md under Cross-Skill Checks. These require reading all SKILL.md files together:

1. Trigger conflicts — Collect all natural-language trigger phrases from every skill's description. Flag any two skills that share the same phrase or where one phrase is a substring of another.

2. Redundancy — Compare skill scopes. Flag pairs where the stated purpose substantially overlaps (merge candidates). Use the description fields as the primary signal.

3. Workflow coverage — Map each skill to the workflow stages defined in references/checks.md (plan → implement → commit → review → release). Flag stages with no skill coverage.

4. Composition gaps — Scan all SKILL.md bodies for references to other skills (e.g., "use the foo skill", "apply bar"). For each reference, verify that the named skill exists under .agents/skills/. Flag missing skills. Also identify two-step workflows referenced across multiple skills (e.g., implement → commit, commit → review) and check whether any skill explicitly coordinates both steps. If no coordinating skill exists and the chain appears in more than one skill's instructions, flag it as a suggestion.

5. Naming consistency — Check that every skill name follows the action+object formula (verb+noun, e.g., upsert-skill, create-commit). If the library has 10 or more skills, check whether related skills share a namespace prefix. Flag deviations.

Report Structure

Present findings in this order, as specified in references/checks.md under Report Format:

1. Structural Findings — one sub-section per skill with issues; skills that pass cleanly are omitted
2. Cross-Skill Findings — one sub-section per check category; categories with no findings are omitted
3. Coverage Map — rendered table showing workflow stages vs. skills (see references/checks.md for format)
4. Overall Summary — counts: skills audited, auto-fixes applied, findings by severity

Format every reported finding with the format-review-comments skill. Use severity labels: issue [blocking] for structural violations that will break agent behavior, suggestion for quality improvements, nitpick for style issues.

Apply the refine-prose skill to the full report before presenting it. Do not announce this step.

Examples

Invocation:

audit my skills

or

check skill coverage

or

validate all skills

Sample coverage map table:

| Stage | Skills | Status | |-----------|------------------------------------------|----------| | plan | upsert-plan | covered | | implement | upsert-skill, review-skill, audit-skills | covered | | commit | create-commit | covered | | review | review-pr, review-skill | covered | | release | — | gap |

Sample trigger-conflict finding:

suggestion: upsert-skill and audit-skills both trigger on "audit skills"

Both skills list "audit skills" as a trigger phrase. Add DO NOT TRIGGER
disambiguation to clarify that upsert-skill handles structural audits as
part of lifecycle management while audit-skills produces a full library
health report.

Sample structural finding:

issue [blocking](review-skill): name field does not match directory

The `name` frontmatter field reads "review_skill" but the directory is
named "review-skill". Rename the frontmatter value to "review-skill".