Rules Evaluator

Discover all rule files, validate their structure and glob patterns against the real project, then run an interactive session to confirm (or improve) each rule with the user.

The goal is not just to score — it is to leave the rules directory in better shape than it was.

When to Use

• First time writing

  .claude/rules/

  files (validate before committing)
• A rule seems to never trigger, or fires on every file
• Migrating

  @

  imports from CLAUDE.md to path-scoped rules
• Periodic hygiene: "are these rules still relevant to how we work?"
• After onboarding to a new codebase

Key Concepts

@file

paths:

paths:

The

paths:

Scoring Criteria (12 pts per rule)

---

Thresholds:

• ✅ Good: ≥10/12 (≥83%)
• ⚠️ Needs work: 7–9/12 (58–82%)
• ❌ Fix: <7/12 (<58%)

Always-on rules (no

paths:

Execution Instructions

Step 1 — Discovery

Use Glob to find all rule files:

.claude/rules/**/*.md

If an argument was passed (e.g.,

/eval-rules ./my-rules/

Also count total source files for scope % calculation:

find . \( -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" \) \
  ! -path "*/node_modules/*" ! -path "*/.git/*" ! -path "*/dist/*" \
  2>/dev/null | wc -l

If no

.claude/rules/

Step 2 — Parse each rule

For each

.md

1. Read the full file
2. Extract YAML frontmatter (content between first

   ---

   and second

   ---

   )
3. Parse

   paths:

   field — collect all glob patterns as a list
4. Classify: conditional (has

   paths:

   ) or always-on (no frontmatter or no

   paths:

   )
5. Read the body: line count, presence of a clear title/header, whether rules are specific

Step 3 — Resolve glob patterns

For each rule with

paths:

• Collect total matched files per pattern
• Show up to 10 sample paths
• Flag dead patterns (0 matches) and broad patterns (>30% of source files)

Step 4 — Interactive review (core of the skill)

Process rules one by one. Do not batch and skip the interaction.

For each conditional rule (has

paths:

Show:

Rule: payments.md [conditional]
paths: ["**/payments/**", "src/billing/**"]
Matches: 12 files
  - src/payments/stripe.py
  - src/payments/webhook.py
  - src/billing/invoice.py
  ... (9 more)

Ask three questions:

1. "Is this scope right? (y = yes / n = needs adjustment)"
2. "Is this rule still useful day-to-day? (y / n / unsure)"
3. "Anything to add, remove, or update in the rule content? (describe or skip)"

For each always-on rule (no

paths:

Show:

Rule: database.md [always-on — loads every session]
Content: 91 lines, 8 rules

Ask:

1. "This rule loads at every session. Should it stay always-on, or be scoped to specific files? (keep / scope / skip)"
2. "Is the content still accurate and useful? (y / n)"

If the user says scope: help them define a

paths:

**/models/**

**/migrations/**

**/*.sql

If the user provides corrections or updates during the interaction: apply them directly using Edit, confirm each change, then move to the next rule.

Step 5 — Output report

After all rules are reviewed:

# Rules Audit — [project name or path]
Date: [today] | Scanned: N rules (X conditional, Y always-on)

## Summary

| Status | Count |
|--------|-------|
| ✅ Good (≥83%) | N |
| ⚠️ Needs work (58–82%) | N |
| ❌ Fix (<58%) | N |
| 🔵 Always-on (no paths:) | N |
| ✅ User confirmed useful | N |
| ⚠️ User flagged for update | N |
| 🗑️ User marked as stale | N |

---

## Per-Rule Results

### payments.md — 11/12 ✅ [conditional]

paths: `**/payments/**`, `src/billing/**`
Matches: 12 files (3.5% of 340 source files)

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| frontmatter | ✅ 1/1 | — |
| paths: field | ✅ 2/2 | 2 patterns |
| pattern validity | ✅ 3/3 | All match ≥1 file |
| scope | ✅ 2/2 | 3.5% — well-scoped |
| content quality | ⚠️ 2/3 | 158 lines — over 150 |

User feedback: ✅ scope confirmed — "fires exactly when we work on Stripe"
Content: no changes needed

---

### database.md — 3/5 🔵 [always-on]

No paths: field — loads at every session.

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| frontmatter | ❌ 0/1 | No frontmatter block |
| content quality | ✅ 3/3 | 91 lines, specific rules, clear header |
| focus | ✅ 1/1 | 8 rules |

User feedback: scope → added paths: ["**/models/**", "**/migrations/**", "**/*.sql"]
Edit applied ✅

---

Step 6 — Fix Summary

## What Changed This Session

database.md:
  - Added frontmatter with paths: ["**/models/**", "**/migrations/**", "**/*.sql"]

testing.md:
  - User confirmed useful, no changes

git-workflow.md:
  - User flagged as stale — marked for deletion (not deleted yet, awaiting confirmation)

---
N rules audited · N edits applied · N rules flagged as stale

For any rule the user marked as stale or outdated: ask for explicit confirmation before deleting. Never delete without a clear "yes, delete it".

Edge Cases

• Subdirectory rules (e.g.,

  .claude/rules/frontend/react.md

  ): discovered and processed normally
• Invalid YAML frontmatter: report parse error, score frontmatter as 0/1
• Empty file: flag as ❌, skip interactive step, ask if it should be deleted
• Dead pattern (0 matches): flag, suggest fix based on rule content
• Pattern matching >30% of files: flag as too broad, suggest narrowing
• User says "unsure" about usefulness: note it in the report, do not edit, add a comment "Review in next audit"