--- name: skill-check description: "Validate Claude Code skills against the agentskills specification. Catches structural, semantic, and naming issues before users do." category: development risk: safe source: https://github.com/olgasafonova/SkillCheck-Free date_added: "2026-03-11" author: olgasafonova tags: [validation, linter, agentskills, skill-authoring, code-quality] tools: [claude, cursor, windsurf, codex-cli] license: MIT allowed-tools: Read Glob compatibility: claude-code --- # SkillCheck ## Overview Validate SKILL.md files against the [agentskills specification](https://agentskills.io) and Anthropic best practices. Catches structural errors, semantic contradictions, naming anti-patterns, and quality gaps in a single read-only pass. ## When to Use This Skill - 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](https://getskillcheck.com) for those ## 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: | Category | Checks | What it catches | |----------|--------|----------------| | Structure (1.x) | Name format, description WHAT+WHEN, allowed-tools, categories, XML injection | Malformed frontmatter, missing fields | | Body (2.x) | Line count, hardcoded paths, stale dates, empty sections, deprecated syntax, MCP tool qualification | Content quality issues | | Naming (3.x) | Vague terms, single-word names, gerund suggestions | Poor discoverability | | Semantic (4.x) | Contradictions, ambiguous terms, missing output format, wisdom/platitudes, misplaced triggers | Logical inconsistencies | | Quality (8.x) | Examples, error handling, triggers, output format, prerequisites, negative triggers | Strengths (positive patterns) | ### 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: Validating a skill ``` User: check my skill at ~/.claude/skills/weekly-report/SKILL.md SkillCheck output: ## 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. ``` ## 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](https://getskillcheck.com) - 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 ## 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 ## 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").