SkillCheck

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/skill-check

https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SkillCheck

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: How It Works, weekly-report Check Results [FREE], Limitations, Common Pitfalls.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Use when user says "check skill", "skillcheck", or "validate SKILL.md"
• Use when reviewing a skill before publishing to a marketplace
• Use when debugging why a skill doesn't trigger correctly
• Use when onboarding a team to skill authoring standards
• Do NOT use for anti-slop detection, security scanning, or token analysis; use SkillCheck Pro for those
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Validate Claude Code skills against the agentskills specification. Catches structural, semantic, and naming issues before users do.

Operating Table

metadata.json

ORIGIN.md

SKILL.md

SKILL.md

## Related Skills

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Overview

Validate SKILL.md files against the agentskills specification and Anthropic best practices. Catches structural errors, semantic contradictions, naming anti-patterns, and quality gaps in a single read-only pass.

Imported: How It Works

Step 1: Parse

Read the target SKILL.md file and extract YAML frontmatter.

Step 2: Validate

Apply all Free tier checks in order:

Step 3: Score

Calculate overall score (0-100). Penalties: critical = -20, warning = -5, suggestion = -1.

Step 4: Report

Return structured results: score, grade (Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Poor), issue list with check IDs, line numbers, messages, and fix suggestions.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @skill-check to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @skill-check against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @skill-check for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @skill-check using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Examples

Example 1: Validating a skill

User: check my skill at ~/.claude/skills/weekly-report/SKILL.md

SkillCheck output:

## Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

- Run SkillCheck before submitting skills to any marketplace
- Fix all critical and warning issues; suggestions are optional
- Use the check ID (e.g., 1.2-desc-when) to find the exact rule in the skill body
- Re-run after fixes to confirm the score improved
- Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
- Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
- Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.

### Imported Operating Notes

#### Imported: Best Practices

- Run SkillCheck before submitting skills to any marketplace
- Fix all critical and warning issues; suggestions are optional
- Use the check ID (e.g., `1.2-desc-when`) to find the exact rule in the skill body
- Re-run after fixes to confirm the score improved

## Troubleshooting

### Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

**Symptoms:** The result ignores the upstream workflow in `plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/skill-check`, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
**Solution:** Re-open `metadata.json`, `ORIGIN.md`, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Load only the files that materially change the answer, then restate the provenance before continuing.

### Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

**Symptoms:** Reviewers can see the generated `SKILL.md`, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
**Solution:** Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

### Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

**Symptoms:** The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
**Solution:** Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.



## Related Skills

- `@server-management` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@service-mesh-expert` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@service-mesh-observability` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@sexual-health-analyzer` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

## Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

| Resource family | What it gives the reviewer | Example path |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `references` | copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream | `references/n/a` |
| `examples` | worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream | `examples/n/a` |
| `scripts` | upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation | `scripts/n/a` |
| `agents` | routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package | `agents/n/a` |
| `assets` | supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package | `assets/n/a` |



### Imported Reference Notes

#### Imported: weekly-report Check Results [FREE]

Score: 85/100 (Good)

### Warnings (2)
  - 1.2-desc-when (line 3): Description missing WHEN clause
  - 4.5-desc-no-triggers (line 3): Description lacks triggering conditions

### Suggestions (1)
  - 3.4-gerund-naming (line 2): Skill name could use gerund form

### Passed Checks: 28

Example 2: Clean skill passes all checks

User: skillcheck ~/.claude/skills/processing-pdfs/SKILL.md

Score: 100/100 (Excellent)
All 31 checks passed. No issues found.

Imported: Limitations

• Read-only: does not modify any files
• Free tier covers structural, semantic, and naming checks only
• Anti-slop, security, WCAG, token, enterprise, and workflow checks require SkillCheck Pro
• Semantic checks (contradiction detection, wisdom/platitude) are heuristic with ~5% false positive rate
• Does not validate referenced files or scripts; only checks SKILL.md content
• Single-file validation; does not cross-check against other skills in the same directory

Imported: Common Pitfalls

• Problem: Score seems low due to many suggestions Solution: Suggestions cap at -15 points total. Focus on warnings and criticals first.

• Problem: False positive on ambiguous terms inside code blocks Solution: SkillCheck skips code blocks and inline code. If you still see false positives, wrap the term in backticks.

• Problem: Wisdom/platitude check flags legitimate instructions Solution: Rephrase generic advice ("Remember that testing is important") as concrete directives ("Run tests before committing").