CD audit-agents-skills
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness. Use when evaluating skill quality, checking production readiness scores, or comparing agents against best-practice templates.
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness.
As a process D 41/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: examples/agents/, examples/skills/, examples/commands/
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash Write
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: examples/agents/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: examples/skills/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: examples/commands/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "effort"
Process rating: all ten parameters 41/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: examples/agents/, examples/skills/, examples/commands/
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 73 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3759 tokens
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 210: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 39 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (19 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.