skills/workflow-repository/naming-agent-skills/SKILL.md
Choose, review, rename, and standardize agent skill names so they are predictable, searchable, and easy for agents to select correctly. Use when creating a new skill name, renaming an existing skill, reviewing whether a skill name is appropriate, standardizing multiple skill names, converting informal skill ideas into production-ready skill names, or designing naming conventions for an agent skill library.
npx skillsauth add narumiruna/agent-skills naming-agent-skillsInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Name skills by the task and trigger condition they represent. Optimize for predictable agent selection, file-tree search, and low overlap with existing skills.
helper, utils, tools, assistant, magic, smart, general, data, files, or documents.Default to:
<verb-ing>-<object>
Examples:
reviewing-pull-requests
debugging-docker-compose
analyzing-otel-traces
writing-unit-tests
refactoring-python
summarizing-logs
Use command-style names only when the library already follows that pattern:
<verb>-<object>
Examples:
review-pull-requests
debug-docker-compose
analyze-otel-traces
write-unit-tests
refactor-python
summarize-logs
Use domain-first names only when the library is organized mainly by technology or domain:
<domain>-<task>
Examples:
python-refactoring
gitlab-mr-review
docker-compose-debugging
otel-trace-analysis
jira-ticket-polishing
When choosing between possible names:
When renaming an existing skill:
Examples:
old: smart-code-helper
new: reviewing-code-changes
old: jira
new: polishing-jira-tickets
old: trace-tool
new: analyzing-otel-traces
Prefer:
reviewing-gitlab-mrs
debugging-ci-pipelines
writing-python-tests
refactoring-typescript
analyzing-otel-traces
summarizing-gmail-threads
polishing-jira-tickets
creating-release-notes
Avoid vague names:
helper
utils
tools
smart-review
magic-agent
general-coding
documents
data
files
Avoid inconsistent formatting:
ReviewPR
review_pr
review.pr
Review-Pull-Requests
review pull requests
Avoid implementation-oriented names:
parse-json
call-api
read-yaml
run-python-script
Prefer purpose-oriented alternatives:
analyzing-test-results
syncing-linear-issues
validating-skill-metadata
generating-project-summary
For a skill that adds timestamps to agent messages, prefer:
adding-message-timestamps
Use pi-message-timestamps only if the skill is specific to Pi. Otherwise, use adding-message-timestamps.
When asked to propose names, return:
Recommended: <name>
Alternatives:
- <name>
- <name>
- <name>
Reason:
<brief explanation>
When asked to review a name, return:
Verdict: good / acceptable / should rename
Issues:
- <issue>
Recommended replacement:
<name>
When asked to standardize multiple names, return a table:
| Current name | Recommended name | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| old-name | new-name | reason |
If there is no strong reason to use another pattern, use <verb-ing>-<object>. This makes the skill name read like a capability and helps the agent understand when to use it.
development
Score or compare one or more agent skills across trigger clarity, workflow actionability, safety boundaries, verification rigor, incremental knowledge value, and leanness. Use only when the user explicitly asks for ratings, numerical quality scores, rubric-based scorecards, or scored comparisons; use creating-agent-skills for unscored reviews or revisions.
development
Assess or improve an existing codebase's architecture when the user asks about module boundaries, coupling, scattered ownership, testability, change locality, deep modules, seams, or behavior-preserving structural refactoring. Use for cross-module design rather than ordinary diff review or a confirmed edge-case bug fix.
development
Perform read-only security audits, vulnerability assessments, or threat-focused reviews of diffs, pull requests, code paths, or explicitly scoped repositories when security is the primary objective or acceptance criterion. Use reviewing-code for ordinary review with baseline security coverage and hardening-code-paths for fixing confirmed findings.
development
Run iterative multi-reviewer panels over a code diff, verify their findings, apply explicitly authorized fixes, and re-review the updated change until it passes or reaches a stopping condition. Use when the user asks for a panel loop, multi-model code-review consensus, or a review-fix-re-review cycle.