🎯

skill-review

🎯Skill

from ovachiever/droid-tings

VibeIndex|
What it does

Systematically reviews and validates claude-skills repository documentation through comprehensive 9-phase technical audit, auto-fixing unambiguous issues with severity classification.

πŸ“¦

Part of

ovachiever/droid-tings(370 items)

skill-review

Installation

git cloneClone repository
git clone https://github.com/ovachiever/droid-tings.git
πŸ“– Extracted from docs: ovachiever/droid-tings
17Installs
-
AddedFeb 4, 2026

Skill Details

SKILL.md

|

Overview

# Skill Review Skill

Overview

The skill-review skill provides a comprehensive, systematic process for auditing skills in the claude-skills repository. It combines automated technical validation with AI-powered verification to ensure skills remain accurate, current, and high-quality.

Use this skill when:

  • Investigating suspected issues in a skill
  • Major package version updates released (e.g., better-auth 1.x β†’ 2.x)
  • Skill last verified >90 days ago
  • Before submitting skill to marketplace
  • User reports errors following skill instructions
  • Examples seem outdated or contradictory

Production evidence: Successfully audited better-auth skill (2025-11-08), found 6 critical/high issues including non-existent API imports, removed 665 lines of incorrect code, implemented v2.0.0 with correct patterns.

---

Quick Start

Invoke via Slash Command

```

/review-skill

```

Example:

```

/review-skill better-auth

```

Invoke via Skill (Proactive)

When Claude notices potential issues, it can suggest:

```

User: "I'm having trouble with better-auth and D1"

Claude: "I notice the better-auth skill was last verified 6 months ago.

Would you like me to review it? Better-auth recently released v1.3

with D1 changes."

```

---

What This Skill Does

9-Phase Systematic Audit

  1. Pre-Review Setup (5-10 min)

- Install skill locally: ./scripts/install-skill.sh

- Check current version and last verified date

- Test skill discovery

  1. Standards Compliance (10-15 min)

- Validate YAML frontmatter (name, description, license)

- Check keyword comprehensiveness

- Verify third-person description style

- Ensure directory structure matches spec

  1. Official Documentation Verification (15-30 min)

- Use Context7 MCP or WebFetch to verify API patterns

- Check GitHub for recent updates and issues

- Verify package versions against npm registry

- Compare with production repositories

  1. Code Examples & Templates Audit (20-40 min)

- Verify import statements exist in current packages

- Check API method signatures match official docs

- Ensure schema consistency across files

- Test templates build and run

  1. Cross-File Consistency (15-25 min)

- Compare SKILL.md vs README.md examples

- Verify "Bundled Resources" section matches actual files

- Ensure configuration examples consistent

  1. Dependencies & Versions (10-15 min)

- Run ./scripts/check-versions.sh

- Check for breaking changes in package updates

- Verify "Last Verified" date is recent

  1. Issue Categorization (10-20 min)

- Classify by severity: πŸ”΄ Critical / 🟑 High / 🟠 Medium / 🟒 Low

- Document with evidence (GitHub URL, docs link, npm changelog)

  1. Fix Implementation (30 min - 4 hours)

- Auto-fix unambiguous issues

- Ask user only for architectural decisions

- Update all affected files consistently

- Bump version if breaking changes

  1. Post-Fix Verification (10-15 min)

- Test skill discovery

- Verify templates work

- Check no contradictions remain

- Commit with detailed changelog

Automated Checks (via script)

The skill runs ./scripts/review-skill.sh which checks:

  • βœ… YAML frontmatter syntax and required fields
  • βœ… Package version currency (npm)
  • βœ… Broken links (HTTP status)
  • βœ… TODO markers in code
  • βœ… File organization (expected directories exist)
  • βœ… "Last Verified" date staleness

Manual Verification (AI-powered)

Claude performs:

  • πŸ” API method verification against official docs
  • πŸ” GitHub activity and issue checks
  • πŸ” Production repository comparisons
  • πŸ” Code example correctness
  • πŸ” Schema consistency validation

---

Process Workflow

Step 1: Run Automated Checks

```bash

./scripts/review-skill.sh

```

Interpret output to identify technical issues.

Step 2: Execute Manual Verification

For Phase 3: Official Documentation Verification:

  1. Use Context7 MCP (if available):

```

Use Context7 to fetch: /websites/

Search for: [API method from skill]

```

  1. Or use WebFetch:

```

Fetch: https://

Verify: [specific patterns]

```

  1. Check GitHub:

```

Visit: https://github.com///commits/main

Check: Last commit, recent changes

Search issues: [keywords from skill]

```

  1. Find production examples:

```

WebSearch: " cloudflare production github"

Compare: Do real projects match our patterns?

```

For Phase 4: Code Examples Audit:

  • Verify all imports exist (check official docs)
  • Check API method signatures match
  • Ensure schema consistency across files
  • Test templates actually work

Step 3: Categorize Issues

πŸ”΄ CRITICAL - Breaks functionality:

  • Non-existent API methods/imports
  • Invalid configuration
  • Missing required dependencies

🟑 HIGH - Causes confusion:

  • Contradictory examples across files
  • Inconsistent patterns
  • Outdated major versions

🟠 MEDIUM - Reduces quality:

  • Stale minor versions (>90 days)
  • Missing documentation sections
  • Incomplete error lists

🟒 LOW - Polish issues:

  • Typos, formatting inconsistencies
  • Missing optional metadata

Step 4: Fix Issues

Auto-fix when:

  • βœ… Fix is unambiguous (correct import from docs)
  • βœ… Evidence is clear
  • βœ… No architectural impact

Ask user when:

  • ❓ Multiple valid approaches
  • ❓ Breaking change decision
  • ❓ Architectural choice

Format for questions:

```

I found [issue]. There are [N] approaches:

  1. [Approach A] - [Pros/Cons]
  2. [Approach B] - [Pros/Cons]

Recommendation: [Default based on evidence]

Which would you prefer?

```

Step 5: Version Bump Assessment

If breaking changes:

  • Major: v1.0.0 β†’ v2.0.0 (API patterns change)
  • Minor: v1.0.0 β†’ v1.1.0 (new features, backward compatible)
  • Patch: v1.0.0 β†’ v1.0.1 (bug fixes only)

Step 6: Generate Audit Report

```markdown

Skill Review Report: <skill-name>

Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Trigger: [Why review performed]

Time Spent: [Duration]

Findings

πŸ”΄ CRITICAL (N): [List with evidence]

🟑 HIGH (N): [List with evidence]

🟠 MEDIUM (N): [List with evidence]

🟒 LOW (N): [List with evidence]

Remediation

Files Modified: [List]

Version Update: [old] β†’ [new]

Breaking Changes: Yes/No

Verification

βœ… Discovery test passed

βœ… Templates work

βœ… Committed: [hash]

Recommendation

[Final assessment]

```

---

Example: better-auth Audit

Findings

Issue #1: Non-existent d1Adapter πŸ”΄ CRITICAL

Location: references/cloudflare-worker-example.ts:17

Problem: Imports d1Adapter from 'better-auth/adapters/d1' which doesn't exist

Evidence:

  • Official docs: https://better-auth.com/docs/integrations/drizzle
  • GitHub: No d1Adapter export in codebase
  • Production: 4 repos use Drizzle/Kysely

Fix: Replace with drizzleAdapter from 'better-auth/adapters/drizzle'

Result

  • Files deleted: 3 (obsolete patterns)
  • Files created: 3 (correct patterns)
  • Lines changed: +1,266 net
  • Version: v1.0.0 β†’ v2.0.0
  • Time: 3.5 hours

---

Bundled Resources

This skill references:

  1. planning/SKILL_REVIEW_PROCESS.md - Complete 9-phase manual guide
  2. scripts/review-skill.sh - Automated validation script
  3. .claude/commands/review-skill.md - Slash command definition

---

When Claude Should Invoke This Skill

Proactive triggers:

  • User mentions skill seems outdated
  • Package major version mentioned
  • User reports errors following skill
  • Checking metadata shows >90 days since verification

Explicit triggers:

  • "review the X skill"
  • "audit better-auth skill"
  • "is cloudflare-worker-base up to date?"
  • "check if tailwind-v4-shadcn needs updating"

---

Token Efficiency

Without this skill: ~25,000 tokens

  • Trial-and-error verification
  • Repeated doc lookups
  • Inconsistent fixes across files
  • Missing evidence citations

With this skill: ~5,000 tokens

  • Systematic process
  • Clear decision trees
  • Evidence-based fixes
  • Comprehensive audit trail

Savings: ~80% (20,000 tokens)

---

Common Issues Prevented

  1. Fake API adapters - Non-existent imports
  2. Stale API methods - Changed signatures
  3. Schema inconsistency - Different table names
  4. Outdated scripts - Deprecated approaches
  5. Version drift - Packages >90 days old
  6. Contradictory examples - Multiple conflicting patterns
  7. Broken links - 404 documentation URLs
  8. YAML errors - Invalid frontmatter syntax
  9. Missing keywords - Poor discoverability
  10. Incomplete bundled resources - Listed files don't exist

---

Best Practices

  1. Always cite sources - GitHub URL, docs link, npm changelog
  2. No assumptions - Verify against current official docs
  3. Be systematic - Follow all 9 phases
  4. Fix consistency - Update all files, not just one
  5. Document thoroughly - Detailed commit messages
  6. Test after fixes - Verify skill still works

---

Known Limitations

  • Link checking requires network access
  • Package version checks need npm installed
  • Context7 MCP availability varies by package
  • Production repo search may need GitHub API
  • Manual phases require human judgment

---

Version History

v1.0.0 (2025-11-08)

  • Initial release
  • 9-phase systematic audit process
  • Automated script + manual guide
  • Slash command + skill wrapper
  • Production-tested on better-auth v2.0.0 audit

---

Additional Resources

  • Full Process Guide: planning/SKILL_REVIEW_PROCESS.md
  • Repository: https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skills
  • Example Audit: See process guide Appendix B (better-auth v2.0.0)

---

Last verified: 2025-11-08 | Version: 1.0.0