Skill: haseo-ai/oc-skill-audit (version 1.0.0)

--- name: skill-audit description: > Audit and score OpenClaw AgentSkills against structural compliance, quality standards, and OpenClaw-specific architecture patterns. Produces a 0-100 score with A-F grade, dimensional breakdown, and actionable improvement recommendations. Use when asked to audit, score, validate, check, or evaluate a skill or SKILL.md. Keywords: skill audit, skill score, skill check, skill validate, 스킬 검증, 스킬 점수, 스킬 평가, 스킬 감사, 스킬 점검, スキル検証, スキル採点, スキル評価, スキル監査, 技能验证, 技能评分, 技能检查, 技能审计. validate skill, skill quality, 스킬 품질. --- # Skill Audit Audit and score OpenClaw AgentSkills with a multi-dimensional scoring system. ## Quick Start "audit this skill" or "score path/to/SKILL.md" ## Language Policy - **Audit reports**: Always generate in **two languages**: 1. **User's language** — for accessibility (detect from request language or target SKILL.md body language) 2. **English** — for global shareability and comparability - Both versions should be complete (scores, dimension analysis, improvement recommendations). - Format: write the user-language version first, then the English version, separated by a clear divider. - If the user already requested English, a single English version suffices (no duplication). ## Scoring Overview ``` Total (0–100) = Weighted Average Dimension Weight Score Range Description ─────────────────── ─────── ─────────── ─────────── A. Structure 20% 0–100 Spec compliance, frontmatter, file structure B. Triggering 15% 0–100 description quality, keywords, triggering C. Style Guide 20% 0–100 Judgment criteria, preservation/compression rules D. Workflow 15% 0–100 Phase 0, sub-agent design E. Sub-Agent Design 15% 0–100 Context injection, templates F. Conciseness 15% 0–100 SKILL.md length, references separation Grade: A(90+) | B(75+) | C(60+) | D(45+) | F(<45) ``` ## How to Audit 1. **Read** target SKILL.md and any references/ 2. **Score** each dimension using the rubric below 3. **Calculate** weighted total and grade 4. **Report** score card + improvement recommendations --- ## Dimension A: Structure (20%) Frontmatter, file structure, agentskills spec compliance. | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | Frontmatter exists | 15 | `---` opening and closing present | | `name` valid | 10 | lowercase, hyphens only, 1-64 chars | | `description` present | 15 | Non-empty, 1-1024 chars | | `description` has keywords | 10 | Keywords in multiple languages | | No auxiliary files | 10 | No README.md, CHANGELOG.md, etc. | | references/ organized | 10 | If exists, 1-level deep, TOC for >100 lines | | SKILL.md under 500 lines | 10 | Lean body, details in references/ | | No duplication | 5 | Info in SKILL.md OR references, not both | | Folder name matches name | 15 | `skill-name/SKILL.md` | **Max: 100** --- ## Dimension B: Triggering (15%) Whether the description triggers the agent correctly. | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | "What" described | 20 | Clear description of what it does | | "When" in description | 25 | Trigger conditions in description (not body) | | Keywords (Korean) | 15 | Korean keywords included | | Keywords (English) | 15 | English keywords included | | Not too verbose | 10 | description ≤ 300 words (metadata cost) | | Not too vague | 15 | Not overly broad (e.g., "helpful skill") | **Max: 100** --- ## Dimension C: Style Guide (20%) Whether judgment criteria (preservation/compression) are specified. **Applicability:** - **Applies:** Text processing/transformation/summarization skills (tasks that modify original content) - **Partially applies:** Code generation/modification skills (may need existing code preservation criteria) - **N/A:** Structured data management (JSON/DB CRUD), simple tool wrappers, configuration management For N/A skills, **exclude** this dimension and redistribute weights among remaining dimensions: - Only C is N/A: A:24%, B:18%, D:18%, E:18%, F:22% - Only E is N/A: A:24%, B:18%, C:24%, D:18%, F:16% - Both C+E are N/A: A:30%, B:20%, D:20%, F:30% | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | Preservation criteria | 30 | "What to preserve" with specific examples | | Compression criteria | 25 | "What to compress" with specific examples | | Task essence defined | 20 | Core task definition (e.g., "summarization is restructuring, not compression") | | Style rules explicit | 15 | Specific rules for tone, style, length, etc. | | Anti-patterns | 10 | "What not to do" specified (bonus) | **Max: 100** --- ## Dimension D: Workflow (15%) Whether Phase 0, execution order, and validation steps exist. | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | Phase 0 (analysis) first | 30 | Full understanding step before task execution | | Clear phase numbering | 15 | Phase 0, 1, 2... structured | | Context injection described | 25 | Explicit statement that Phase 0 results are injected into sub-agent prompts | | Validation step | 20 | Result quality validation step (length/style/omissions) | | Error handling | 10 | Failure response instructions | **Max: 100** --- ## Dimension E: Sub-Agent Design (15%) Sub-agent prompt design quality. **Applicability:** - **Applies:** Skills that use sub-agents (parallel/sequential chunk processing, etc.) - **Partially applies:** Skills that optionally mention sub-agent delegation (core is single-agent) - **N/A:** Skills that do not use sub-agents at all For N/A skills, **exclude** this dimension and redistribute weights among remaining dimensions: - Only C is N/A: A:24%, B:18%, D:18%, E:18%, F:22% - Only E is N/A: A:24%, B:18%, C:24%, D:18%, F:16% - Both C+E are N/A: A:30%, B:20%, D:20%, F:30% | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | Prompt template exists | 20 | Template file in references/ | | `[ ]` placeholders | 20 | Blank fields filled by Phase 0 explicitly marked | | Context fields defined | 20 | Full context, chunk position, preservation list | | Style rules in template | 15 | 3-4 line style instructions included | | Merge ≠ concatenate | 15 | Explicit prohibition of simple concatenation | | Sequential pipeline | 10 | Sequential ordering for multi-stage output | **Max: 100** --- ## Dimension F: Conciseness (15%) Context window efficiency. | Check | Points | Criteria | |-------|--------|----------| | SKILL.md body < 500 lines | 40 | Length compliance | | SKILL.md body < 300 lines | 10 | Bonus (very concise) | | No redundant instructions | 20 | No duplicate instructions | | "Agent is smart" principle | 15 | Does not redundantly explain what the agent already knows | | References linked | 15 | "When to read" description for each reference file | **Max: 100** --- ## Output Format ### Delivery Always do both: 1. **File**: Save the full audit report (bilingual) to `~/.openclaw/workspace/skill-audit-reports/[skill-name]-audit-[YYYY-MM-DD-HHmm].md`. If the same skill is audited again, a new timestamped file is created — never overwrite previous reports. Never save inside the target skill's directory — keep skill folders clean for distribution. 2. **Response**: Include a summary card in your reply — total score, grade, top 3 improvement recommendations, and file path. Do NOT paste the full report in the response. ### Bilingual Output Per the Language Policy above, generate two complete versions: 1. **User's language version** (first) 2. **English version** (second) Separate them with a clear divider: ``` --- ## English Version ``` If the user requested English, a single English version suffices. ### Score Card ```markdown # Skill Audit: [skill-name] **Version**: skill-audit v1.0 **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD **Target**: path/to/SKILL.md ## Score: 78/100 (B) | Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | |-----------|-------|--------|----------| | A. Structure | 85 | 20% | 17.0 | | B. Triggering | 90 | 15% | 13.5 | | C. Style Guide | 60 | 20% | 12.0 | | D. Workflow | 70 | 15% | 10.5 | | E. Sub-Agent Design | 80 | 15% | 12.0 | | F. Conciseness | 85 | 15% | 12.8 | | **Total** | | | **77.8** | ## Grade: B --- ## Dimension Details ### A. Structure (85/100) ✅ Frontmatter exists (+15) ✅ name valid: "summarize" (+10) ✅ description present (+15) ... ❌ SKILL.md over 500 lines (-10) → Tip: Split detailed specs into references/ ### B. Triggering (90/100) ... ## Improvement Recommendations 1. **[High]** Add preservation/compression criteria to Style Guide → C score +20 expected 2. **[Medium]** Specify Phase 0 → D score +15 expected 3. **[Low]** Add references/ TOC → A score +5 expected ``` ### Improvement Priority Labels - **[Critical]** — Skill may not function properly - **[High]** — Major impact on quality - **[Medium]** — Meaningful score improvement if addressed - **[Low]** — Minor improvement --- ## Batch Mode Audit multiple skills at once: "Audit all skills in the skills/ folder" → Generate individual score cards per skill, then produce a comparison table: ``` | Skill | Total | Grade | A | B | C | D | E | F | |-------|-------|-------|---|---|---|---|---|---| | summarize | 82 | B+ | 93 | 88 | 88 | 77 | 78 | 65 | | changelog | 85 | B+ | 90 | 85 | 90 | 85 | N/A | 80 | | scaffold | 81 | B | 85 | 80 | 75 | 80 | N/A | 85 | ``` ## References - `references/scoring-rubric.md` — Detailed scoring rubric with examples per dimension - `examples/` — Completed audit reports and batch comparisons for validated skills

path: references/scoring-rubric.ja.md
content: # 採点ルーブリック — 詳細例

各次元の採点に関する具体的な例です。

---

## A. 構造 (Structure) の例

### name バリデーション
| name | 点数 | 理由 |
|------|------|------|
| `summarize` | ✅10 | 小文字、ハイフン |
| `unit-converter` | ✅10 | 小文字、ハイフン |
| `Skill_Creator` | ❌0 | 大文字、アンダースコア |
| `my-skill-is-really-long-and-descriptive-of-what-it-does` | ❌0 | 64文字超過 |
| `123skill` | ❌0 | 数字で開始 |

### description 品質
| description | 点数 | 理由 |
|------------|------|------|
| "要約, 詳細要約, 5倍要約, 要約して, まとめ, summary, summarize, digest..." (200語, what+when+keywords) | ✅15+10 | 明確 + キーワード |
| "役立つスキルです。" | ❌0 | 曖昧すぎる |
| "内容を要約します。" | ❌5 | whatはあるが、when/keywordsがない |

### 補助ファイル (auxiliary files)
| ファイル構成 | 点数 |
|-----------|------|
| SKILL.md + references/ | ✅10 |
| SKILL.md + README.md | ❌0 |
| SKILL.md + CHANGELOG.md + INSTALL.md | ❌0 |

---

## B. トリガリング (Triggering) の例

### "When" の配置場所
| 場所 | 点数 | 理由 |
|------|------|------|
| descriptionに "Use when..." が含まれる | ✅25 | 本文より先にロードされる |
| SKILL.md本文に "When to Use" セクションがある | ❌0 | 本文はトリガリング後にロードされる |
| 両方にある | ⚠️15 | 本文の存在はトリガリングに意味がない |

### キーワード
| description | ja | en | 点数 |
|------------|----|----|------|
| "要約, 短く要約, 200文字, summarize, digest" | ✅ | ✅ | ✅30 |
| "Summarize content into structured markdown" | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️15 |

---

## C. スタイルガイド (Style Guide) の例

### 良い例 (要約スキル)
```markdown
### Preservation Criteria (never discard)
- Core arguments and evidence — convey the author's intent
- Specific examples — concretize abstract claims
- Figures and data — with sources

### Compression Criteria
- Repeated arguments — if the same content appears in multiple places, keep only one
```
→ ✅ preservation(30) + compression(25) + essence(20) = 75+

### 悪い例 (形式のみ)
```markdown
## Output Format
- Each chapter 3-5 sentences
- Include key takeaways
```
→ ❌ preservation基準なし、compression基準なし = 0

### N/A 適用例外
スキルがsub-agentを全く使用せず、単一タスクである場合：
- スタイルガイドスコアの50%を適用（最大50 → N/A調整で70%スコア）
- 理由：単一タスクエージェントは既に独自の判断基準を内蔵している

---

## D. ワークフロー (Workflow) の例

### 良い例 (明示的な Phase 0)
```markdown
### Phase 0: Structure Analysis (★ most important)
1. Scan entire text to understand outline/section structure
2. Map topic flow
3. Include this information in sub-agent prompts

### Phase 1: ...
```
→ ✅ Phase 0(30) + 番号付け(15) + コンテキスト計画(25) = 70+

### 悪い例 (Phase 0 なし)
```markdown
## How to Use
1. Extract text from PDF
2. Split into chunks
3. Send to sub-agent
```
→ ❌ Phase 0なし = コンテキスト計画0点、全体的に低スコア

---

## E. Sub-Agent 設計の例

### 良いテンプレート (`[ ]` 使用)
```markdown
## Context
[Full structure — filled by Phase 0]
[This chunk's position — filled by Phase 0]

## Preserve (this chunk only)
[Preservation list — filled by Phase 0]
```
→ ✅ template(20) + placeholders(20) + context(20) = 60+

### 悪いテンプレート (コンテキスト注入なし)
```markdown
Summarize the following text in 3-5 sentences.

---
[chunk text]
---
```
→ ❌ placeholdersなし、コンテキストなし = 低スコア

---

## F. 簡潔性 (Conciseness) の例

| SKILL.md 行数 | 点数 | 備考 |
|--------------|------|------|
| 120行 | ✅50 | 300行未満、ボーナス +10 = 50 |
| 280行 | ✅40 | 500行未満 |
| 520行 | ⚠️20 | やや超過、分割推奨 |
| 800行 | ❌0 | 大幅超過、分割必須 |

### "エージェントは賢い" 違反
```markdown
## How to Read a File
Use the `read` tool to read the contents of a file. The `read` tool takes a
`path` parameter which specifies the file to read...
```
→ ❌ エージェントが既に知っているツール使用法を冗長に説明 → -15

---

## スコア解釈ガイド

### A (90+): 本番稼働準備完了
全次元で高品質を備えた well-designed なスキルです。軽微な改善のみでデプロイ準備完了です。

### B (75–89): 良好
ほとんどの基準を満たしていますが、1〜2次元で改善の余地があります。

### C (60–74): 可
基本的には機能しますが、sub-agentを使用すると品質が低下する可能性があります。
Style GuideまたはPhase 0が欠落している可能性が高いです。

### D (45–59): 改善が必要
複数次元で不足しています。sub-agentの結果が不整合になる可能性が高いです。
構造的改善が必要です。

### F (<45): 不足
基本仕様の遵守に問題がある可能性があります。frontmatterまたはdescriptionの書き直しが必要です。


path: references/scoring-rubric.ko.md
content: # 채점 기준표 — 상세 예시

각 차원별 채점에 대한 구체적인 예시입니다.

---

## A. 구조 (Structure) 예시

### name 유효성 검사
| name | 점수 | 사유 |
|------|------|------|
| `summarize` | ✅10 | 소문자, 하이픈 |
| `unit-converter` | ✅10 | 소문자, 하이픈 |
| `Skill_Creator` | ❌0 | 대문자 포함, 언더스코어 |
| `my-skill-is-really-long-and-descriptive-of-what-it-does` | ❌0 | 64자 초과 |
| `123skill` | ❌0 | 숫자로 시작 |

### description 품질
| description | 점수 | 사유 |
|------------|------|------|
| "요약, 상세요약, 5배요약, 요약해, 정리, summary, summarize, digest..." (200단어, what+when+keywords) | ✅15+10 | 명확함 + 키워드 포함 |
| "도움이 되는 스킬입니다." | ❌0 | 너무 모호함 |
| "내용을 요약합니다." | ❌5 | what은 있으나 when/keywords 없음 |

### 보조 파일 (auxiliary files)
| 파일 구성 | 점수 |
|-----------|------|
| SKILL.md + references/ | ✅10 |
| SKILL.md + README.md | ❌0 |
| SKILL.md + CHANGELOG.md + INSTALL.md | ❌0 |

---

## B. 트리거링 (Triggering) 예시

### "When" 배치 위치
| 위치 | 점수 | 사유 |
|------|------|------|
| description에 "Use when..." 포함 | ✅25 | 본문보다 먼저 로드됨 |
| SKILL.md 본문에 "When to Use" 섹션이 있음 | ❌0 | 본문은 트리거링 이후에 로드됨 |
| 둘 다 있음 | ⚠️15 | 본문의 존재는 트리거링에 의미 없음 |

### 키워드
| description | ko | en | 점수 |
|------------|----|----|------|
| "요약, 짧게 요약, 200자, summarize, digest" | ✅ | ✅ | ✅30 |
| "Summarize content into structured markdown" | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️15 |

---

## C. 스타일 가이드 (Style Guide) 예시

### 좋은 예시 (요약 스킬)
```markdown
### Preservation Criteria (never discard)
- Core arguments and evidence — convey the author's intent
- Specific examples — concretize abstract claims
- Figures and data — with sources

### Compression Criteria
- Repeated arguments — if the same content appears in multiple places, keep only one
```
→ ✅ preservation(30) + compression(25) + essence(20) = 75+

### 나쁜 예시 (형식만 지정)
```markdown
## Output Format
- Each chapter 3-5 sentences
- Include key takeaways
```
→ ❌ preservation 기준 없음, compression 기준 없음 = 0

### N/A 적용 예외
스킬이 sub-agent를 전혀 사용하지 않고 단일 작업인 경우:
- 전체 Style Guide 점수의 50% 적용 (최대 50 → N/A 조정으로 70% 점수)
- 사유: 단일 작업 에이전트는 이미 자체 판단 기준을 내장하고 있음

---

## D. 워크플로우 (Workflow) 예시

### 좋은 예시 (명시적 Phase 0)
```markdown
### Phase 0: Structure Analysis (★ most important)
1. Scan entire text to understand outline/section structure
2. Map topic flow
3. Include this information in sub-agent prompts

### Phase 1: ...
```
→ ✅ Phase 0(30) + 번호 매기기(15) + 컨텍스트 계획(25) = 70+

### 나쁜 예시 (Phase 0 없음)
```markdown
## How to Use
1. Extract text from PDF
2. Split into chunks
3. Send to sub-agent
```
→ ❌ Phase 0 없음 = 컨텍스트 계획 0점, 전반적으로 낮은 점수

---

## E. Sub-Agent 설계 예시

### 좋은 템플릿 (`[ ]` 사용)
```markdown
## Context
[Full structure — filled by Phase 0]
[This chunk's position — filled by Phase 0]

## Preserve (this chunk only)
[Preservation list — filled by Phase 0]
```
→ ✅ template(20) + placeholders(20) + context(20) = 60+

### 나쁜 템플릿 (컨텍스트 주입 없음)
```markdown
Summarize the following text in 3-5 sentences.

---
[chunk text]
---
```
→ ❌ placeholders 없음, 컨텍스트 없음 = 낮은 점수

---

## F. 간결성 (Conciseness) 예시

| SKILL.md 줄 수 | 점수 | 참고 |
|---------------|------|------|
| 120줄 | ✅50 | 300줄 미만, 보너스 +10 = 50 |
| 280줄 | ✅40 | 500줄 미만 |
| 520줄 | ⚠️20 | 약간 초과, 분할 권장 |
| 800줄 | ❌0 | 훨씬 초과, 분할 필수 |

### "에이전트는 똑똑하다" 위반
```markdown
## How to Read a File
Use the `read` tool to read the contents of a file. The `read` tool takes a
`path` parameter which specifies the file to read...
```
→ ❌ 에이전트가 이미 아는 도구 사용법을 중복 설명함 → -15

---

## 점수 해석 가이드

### A (90+): 프로덕션 준비 완료
모든 차원에서 높은 품질을 갖춘 잘 설계된 스킬입니다. 사소한 개선만으로 배포 준비가 완료되었습니다.

### B (75–89): 양호
대부분의 기준을 충족하지만 1~2개 차원에서 개선 여지가 있습니다.

### C (60–74): 보통
기본적으로 기능하지만, sub-agent를 사용할 경우 품질이 저하될 수 있습니다.
Style Guide 또는 Phase 0이 누락되었을 가능성이 높습니다.

### D (45–59): 개선 필요
여러 차원에서 부족합니다. sub-agent 결과가 일관되지 않을 가능성이 높습니다.
구조적 개선이 필요합니다.

### F (<45): 미흡
기본 사양 준수에 문제가 있을 수 있습니다. frontmatter 또는 description을 다시 작성해야 합니다.


path: references/scoring-rubric.zh.md
content: # 评分标准 — 详细示例

各维度评分的具体示例。

---

## A. 结构 (Structure) 示例

### name 验证
| name | 分数 | 原因 |
|------|------|------|
| `summarize` | ✅10 | 小写、连字符 |
| `unit-converter` | ✅10 | 小写、连字符 |
| `Skill_Creator` | ❌0 | 包含大写、下划线 |
| `my-skill-is-really-long-and-descriptive-of-what-it-does` | ❌0 | 超过64字符 |
| `123skill` | ❌0 | 以数字开头 |

### description 质量
| description | 分数 | 原因 |
|------------|------|------|
| "摘要, 详细摘要, 5倍摘要, 帮我摘要, 整理, summary, summarize, digest..."（200词, what+when+keywords） | ✅15+10 | 清晰 + 关键词 |
| "有用的技能。" | ❌0 | 过于模糊 |
| "总结内容。" | ❌5 | 有what，但缺少when/keywords |

### 辅助文件 (auxiliary files)
| 文件组成 | 分数 |
|-----------|------|
| SKILL.md + references/ | ✅10 |
| SKILL.md + README.md | ❌0 |
| SKILL.md + CHANGELOG.md + INSTALL.md | ❌0 |

---

## B. 触发 (Triggering) 示例

### "When" 的放置位置
| 位置 | 分数 | 原因 |
|------|------|------|
| description包含 "Use when..." | ✅25 | 在正文之前加载 |
| SKILL.md正文有 "When to Use" 章节 | ❌0 | 正文在触发之后才加载 |
| 两者都有 | ⚠️15 | 正文存在对触发没有意义 |

### 关键词
| description | zh | en | 分数 |
|------------|----|----|------|
| "摘要, 简短摘要, 200字, summarize, digest" | ✅ | ✅ | ✅30 |
| "Summarize content into structured markdown" | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️15 |

---

## C. 风格指南 (Style Guide) 示例

### 好的示例（摘要技能）
```markdown
### Preservation Criteria (never discard)
- Core arguments and evidence — convey the author's intent
- Specific examples — concretize abstract claims
- Figures and data — with sources

### Compression Criteria
- Repeated arguments — if the same content appears in multiple places, keep only one
```
→ ✅ preservation(30) + compression(25) + essence(20) = 75+

### 差的示例（仅格式）
```markdown
## Output Format
- Each chapter 3-5 sentences
- Include key takeaways
```
→ ❌ 无保留标准，无压缩标准 = 0

### N/A 适用例外
技能完全不使用sub-agent且为单一任务操作时：
- 应用Style Guide满分的50%（最高50 → N/A调整为70%分数）
- 原因：单一任务代理已内置自身的判断标准

---

## D. 工作流 (Workflow) 示例

### 好的示例（明确的 Phase 0）
```markdown
### Phase 0: Structure Analysis (★ most important)
1. Scan entire text to understand outline/section structure
2. Map topic flow
3. Include this information in sub-agent prompts

### Phase 1: ...
```
→ ✅ Phase 0(30) + 编号(15) + 上下文规划(25) = 70+

### 差的示例（无 Phase 0）
```markdown
## How to Use
1. Extract text from PDF
2. Split into chunks
3. Send to sub-agent
```
→ ❌ 无Phase 0 = 上下文规划0分，整体分数低

---

## E. Sub-Agent 设计示例

### 好的模板（使用 `[ ]`）
```markdown
## Context
[Full structure — filled by Phase 0]
[This chunk's position — filled by Phase 0]

## Preserve (this chunk only)
[Preservation list — filled by Phase 0]
```
→ ✅ template(20) + placeholders(20) + context(20) = 60+

### 差的模板（无上下文注入）
```markdown
Summarize the following text in 3-5 sentences.

---
[chunk text]
---
```
→ ❌ 无占位符，无上下文 = 低分

---

## F. 简洁性 (Conciseness) 示例

| SKILL.md 行数 | 分数 | 备注 |
|--------------|------|------|
| 120行 | ✅50 | 300行以下，奖励 +10 = 50 |
| 280行 | ✅40 | 500行以下 |
| 520行 | ⚠️20 | 略超，建议拆分 |
| 800行 | ❌0 | 大幅超标，必须拆分 |

### "代理很聪明" 违规
```markdown
## How to Read a File
Use the `read` tool to read the contents of a file. The `read` tool takes a
`path` parameter which specifies the file to read...
```
→ ❌ 冗余解释代理已知的工具用法 → -15

---

## 分数解读指南

### A (90+)：生产就绪
技能在所有维度上具有高质量，设计良好。仅需小幅改进即可部署。

### B (75–89)：良好
满足大部分标准，但在1-2个维度上有改进空间。

### C (60–74)：及格
基本功能可用，但如果使用sub-agent，质量可能会下降。
Style Guide或Phase 0可能缺失。

### D (45–59)：需要改进
多个维度不足。sub-agent结果可能不一致。
需要结构性改进。

### F (<45)：不合格
基本规格合规可能存在问题。需要重写frontmatter或description。


path: references/scoring-rubric.md
content: # Scoring Rubric — Detailed Examples

Concrete examples for scoring each dimension.

---

## A. Structure Examples

### name validation
| name | Score | Reason |
|------|-------|--------|
| `summarize` | ✅10 | lowercase, hyphens |
| `unit-converter` | ✅10 | lowercase, hyphens |
| `Skill_Creator` | ❌0 | uppercase, underscore |
| `my-skill-is-really-long-and-descriptive-of-what-it-does` | ❌0 | >64 chars |
| `123skill` | ❌0 | starts with digit |

### description quality
| description | Score | Reason |
|------------|-------|--------|
| "Summarize any content..." (200 words, what+when+keywords) | ✅15+10 | clear + keywords |
| "Helpful skill." | ❌0 | too vague |
| "Summarize things." | ❌5 | what exists, but no when/keywords |

### auxiliary files
| Files | Score |
|-------|-------|
| SKILL.md + references/ | ✅10 |
| SKILL.md + README.md | ❌0 |
| SKILL.md + CHANGELOG.md + INSTALL.md | ❌0 |

---

## B. Triggering Examples

### "When" placement
| Location | Score | Reason |
|----------|-------|--------|
| description includes "Use when..." | ✅25 | Loaded before body |
| SKILL.md body has "When to Use" section | ❌0 | Body is loaded after triggering |
| Both present | ⚠️15 | Body presence is meaningless for triggering |

### keywords
| description | ko | en | Score |
|------------|----|----|-------|
| "요약, 짧게 요약, 200자, summarize, digest" | ✅ | ✅ | ✅30 |
| "Summarize content into structured markdown" | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️15 |

---

## C. Style Guide Examples

### good example (summarize)
```markdown
### Preservation Criteria (never discard)
- Core arguments and evidence — convey the author's intent
- Specific examples — concretize abstract claims
- Figures and data — with sources

### Compression Criteria
- Repeated arguments — if the same content appears in multiple places, keep only one
```
→ ✅ preservation(30) + compression(25) + essence(20) = 75+

### bad example (format-only)
```markdown
## Output Format
- Each chapter 3-5 sentences
- Include key takeaways
```
→ ❌ no preservation criteria, no compression criteria = 0

### N/A exemption
If a skill does not use sub-agents at all and is a single-task operation:
- Apply 50% of full Style Guide score (max 50 → N/A adjustment to 70% score)
- Reason: Single-task agents already have their own built-in judgment criteria

---

## D. Workflow Examples

### good example (explicit Phase 0)
```markdown
### Phase 0: Structure Analysis (★ most important)
1. Scan entire text to understand outline/section structure
2. Map topic flow
3. Include this information in sub-agent prompts

### Phase 1: ...
```
→ ✅ Phase 0(30) + numbering(15) + context plan(25) = 70+

### bad example (no Phase 0)
```markdown
## How to Use
1. Extract text from PDF
2. Split into chunks
3. Send to sub-agent
```
→ ❌ No Phase 0 = 0 for context plan, overall low score

---

## E. Sub-Agent Design Examples

### good template with `[ ]`
```markdown
## Context
[Full structure — filled by Phase 0]
[This chunk's position — filled by Phase 0]

## Preserve (this chunk only)
[Preservation list — filled by Phase 0]
```
→ ✅ template(20) + placeholders(20) + context(20) = 60+

### bad template (no context injection)
```markdown
Summarize the following text in 3-5 sentences.

---
[chunk text]
---
```
→ ❌ no placeholders, no context = low score

---

## F. Conciseness Examples

| SKILL.md lines | Score | Notes |
|---------------|-------|-------|
| 120 lines | ✅50 | Under 300, bonus +10 = 50 |
| 280 lines | ✅40 | Under 500 |
| 520 lines | ⚠️20 | Slightly over, recommend split |
| 800 lines | ❌0 | Way over, must split |

### "Agent is smart" violation
```markdown
## How to Read a File
Use the `read` tool to read the contents of a file. The `read` tool takes a
`path` parameter which specifies the file to read...
```
→ ❌ Redundantly explains tool usage the agent already knows → -15

---

## Score Interpretation Guide

### A (90+): Production Ready
The skill is well-designed with high quality across all dimensions. Ready for deployment with only minor improvements.

### B (75–89): Good
Meets most criteria but has room for improvement in 1-2 dimensions.

### C (60–74): Adequate
Basically functional, but quality may degrade if sub-agents are used.
Style Guide or Phase 0 is likely missing.

### D (45–59): Needs Work
Deficient in multiple dimensions. Sub-agent results are likely inconsistent.
Structural improvements needed.

### F (<45): Poor
Basic spec compliance may be problematic. Frontmatter or description needs rewriting.


path: examples/scaffold.md
content: # Skill Audit: scaffold

**Version**: skill-audit v1.0
**Date**: 2026-05-21
**Target**: /home/node/.openclaw/workspace/skills/scaffold/SKILL.md
**Type**: Code Generation / Modification
**N/A Dimensions**: E (Sub-Agent Design)
**Redistributed Weights**: A:24%, B:18%, C:24%, D:18%, F:16%

## Score: 81/100 (B)

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Notes |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| A. Structure | 85 | 24% | 20.4 | |
| B. Triggering | 90 | 18% | 16.2 | |
| C. Style Guide | 70 | 24% | 16.8 | Partially applies |
| D. Workflow | 80 | 18% | 14.4 | |
| E. Sub-Agent Design | N/A | — | — | Does not use sub-agents: N/A |
| F. Conciseness | 82 | 16% | 13.1 | |
| **Total** | | | **80.9** |

## Grade: B

---

## Dimension Details

### A. Structure (85/100)
✅ Frontmatter exists (+15)
✅ name valid: "scaffold" — lowercase, hyphens only (+10)
✅ description present — clear (+15)
✅ description has keywords — Korean + English (+10)
✅ No auxiliary files — no README.md, CHANGELOG.md (+10)
✅ references/ organized — 1-level deep, 1 file (+10)
✅ SKILL.md under 500 lines — 166 lines (+10)
✅ No duplication — framework templates separated into references/ (+5)
✅ Folder name matches name (+15)

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### B. Triggering (90/100)
✅ "What" described — "Scaffold new projects with best-practice structure, config files, and boilerplate" (+20)
✅ "When" in description — "Use when asked to create a new project, scaffold, initialize, set up, bootstrap, or start a new codebase" (+25)
✅ Keywords (Korean) — 프로젝트 생성, 스캐폴딩, 초기 설정, 프로젝트 구조, 프로젝트 시작, 뼈대 (+15)
✅ Keywords (English) — scaffold, project setup, bootstrap, initialize, new project, create project (+15)
✅ Not too verbose — description ~30 words (+10)
✅ Not too vague — scope specified with "Node.js/TypeScript projects" (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### C. Style Guide (70/100)
⚠️ Preservation criteria — existing file preservation mentioned but code style preservation criteria weak (+15)
⚠️ Compression criteria — "don't add optional tools not specified by user" but lacking specific examples (+12)
⚠️ Task essence defined — none (only "best-practice" mentioned) (+5)
⚠️ Style rules explicit — only "TypeScript (default), pnpm (default)" level (+8)
❌ Anti-patterns — none (+0)
→ Partially applies but preservation/compression criteria not concretized for code generation

**Subtotal: 70/100**

### D. Workflow (80/100)
✅ Phase 0 first — "Requirements Analysis" user request understanding (+30)
✅ Phase numbering — Phase 0, 1, 2, 3 (+15)
⚠️ Context injection — no sub-agents but Phase 0→1 parameter passing is implicit (+15)
✅ Validation step — Phase 3 "type check passes then complete" (+20)
✅ Error handling — 4 error response types table (+10)

**Subtotal: 80/100**

### E. Sub-Agent Design (N/A)
Does not use sub-agents at all. N/A.

### F. Conciseness (82/100)
✅ SKILL.md body < 500 lines — 166 lines (+40)
✅ SKILL.md body < 300 lines — 166 lines, bonus (+10)
✅ No redundant instructions — minimal duplication (+15)
⚠️ "Agent is smart" — template (JSON) fully included but justified for generation; some parts agent could generate (+10)
✅ References linked — 1 reference file link (+15)

**Subtotal: 82/100**

---

## Improvement Recommendations

1. **[Medium]** Strengthen style guide: specify code formatting criteria (Prettier config contents), naming conventions, file structure principles → C score +15 expected
2. **[Low]** Add anti-patterns: "monorepo requires a separate skill", "no git init (user does it)" etc. → C score +10 expected
3. **[Low]** Move JSON templates to references/ → F score +5 expected


path: examples/unit-converter.md
content: # Skill Audit: unit-converter

**Version**: skill-audit v1.0
**Date**: 2026-05-21
**Target**: /home/node/.openclaw/workspace/skills/unit-converter/SKILL.md
**Type**: Single Task
**N/A Dimensions**: C (Style Guide), E (Sub-Agent Design)
**Redistributed Weights**: A:30%, B:20%, D:20%, F:30%

## Score: 76/100 (B)

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Notes |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| A. Structure | 85 | 30% | 25.5 | |
| B. Triggering | 90 | 20% | 18.0 | |
| C. Style Guide | N/A | — | — | Simple tool wrapper: N/A |
| D. Workflow | 45 | 20% | 9.0 | |
| E. Sub-Agent Design | N/A | — | — | Does not use sub-agents: N/A |
| F. Conciseness | 78 | 30% | 23.4 | |
| **Total** | | | **75.9** |

## Grade: B

---

## Dimension Details

### A. Structure (85/100)
✅ Frontmatter exists (+15)
✅ name valid: "unit-converter" — lowercase, hyphens only (+10)
✅ description present — clear (+15)
✅ description has keywords — Korean + English (+10)
✅ No auxiliary files — no README.md, CHANGELOG.md (+10)
✅ references/ organized — 1-level deep, 1 file (+10)
✅ SKILL.md under 500 lines — 157 lines (+10)
✅ No duplication — conversion factors separated into references/ (+5)
✅ Folder name matches name (+15)

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### B. Triggering (90/100)
✅ "What" described — "Convert between units using natural language" (+20)
✅ "When" in description — "Use when asked to convert units, change units, or calculate equivalent values" (+25)
✅ Keywords (Korean) — 단위 변환, 단위 환산, 화씨 섭씨, 마일 킬로미터, 파운드 킬로그램, 단위 계산 (+15)
✅ Keywords (English) — convert, unit conversion, unit converter, temperature, length, weight, volume (+15)
✅ Not too verbose — description ~40 words (+10)
✅ Not too vague — clear with "natural language" and example expressions (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### C. Style Guide (N/A)
Simple unit conversion tool — no text transformation tasks. N/A.

### D. Workflow (45/100)
❌ Phase 0 first — 3-step (Parse → Convert → Respond) but no Phase 0 full understanding step (+0)
❌ Phase numbering — no Phase structure (+0)
⚠️ Context injection — no sub-agents so N/A, but parsing step indirectly serves as context (+10)
✅ Validation step — Precision Rules has output validation criteria (+15)
⚠️ Error handling — none (+5)
→ Workflow is minimal with no Phase structure at all

**Subtotal: 45/100**

### E. Sub-Agent Design (N/A)
Does not use sub-agents at all. N/A.

### F. Conciseness (78/100)
✅ SKILL.md body < 500 lines — 157 lines (+40)
✅ SKILL.md body < 300 lines — 157 lines, bonus (+10)
⚠️ No redundant instructions — conversion tables somewhat repetitive (length, weight, volume etc. similar structure) (+12)
✅ "Agent is smart" — conversion factors are reference data the agent cannot infer, so justified (+15)
⚠️ References linked — 1 reference file link (+10)
→ Conversion tables occupy most of SKILL.md but are reference material so somewhat justified

**Subtotal: 78/100**

---

## Improvement Recommendations

1. **[High]** Introduce Phase structure: Phase 0 (request parsing), Phase 1 (conversion), Phase 2 (validation+output) → D score +20 expected
2. **[Medium]** Add error handling: unsupported units, ambiguous requests etc. → D score +5 expected
3. **[Low]** Move some conversion tables to references/ (Korean parsing table etc.) → F score +5 expected


path: examples/screenshot-capture.md
content: # Skill Audit: screenshot-capture

**Version**: skill-audit v1.0
**Date**: 2026-05-21
**Target**: /home/node/.openclaw/workspace/skills/screenshot-capture/SKILL.md
**Type**: Tool Integration
**N/A Dimensions**: C (Style Guide), E (Sub-Agent Design)
**Redistributed Weights**: A:30%, B:20%, D:20%, F:30%

## Score: 78/100 (B)

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Notes |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| A. Structure | 85 | 30% | 25.5 | |
| B. Triggering | 90 | 20% | 18.0 | |
| C. Style Guide | N/A | — | — | Tool wrapper: N/A |
| D. Workflow | 60 | 20% | 12.0 | |
| E. Sub-Agent Design | N/A | — | — | Does not use sub-agents: N/A |
| F. Conciseness | 75 | 30% | 22.5 | |
| **Total** | | | **78.0** |

## Grade: B

---

## Dimension Details

### A. Structure (85/100)
✅ Frontmatter exists (+15)
✅ name valid: "screenshot-capture" — lowercase, hyphens only (+10)
✅ description present — clear (+15)
✅ description has keywords — Korean + English (+10)
✅ No auxiliary files — no README.md, CHANGELOG.md (+10)
✅ references/ organized — 1-level deep, 1 file (+10)
✅ SKILL.md under 500 lines — 133 lines (+10)
✅ No duplication — browser automation notes in references/ (+5)
✅ Folder name matches name (+15)

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### B. Triggering (90/100)
✅ "What" described — "Capture screenshots from web pages, nodes, or paired devices..." (+20)
✅ "When" in description — "Use when asked to take a screenshot, capture a screen, snap a page, or visually analyze" (+25)
✅ Keywords (Korean) — 스크린샷, 캡처, 화면 캡처, 웹 캡처, 페이지 스크린샷, 노드 화면 (+15)
✅ Keywords (English) — screenshot, capture, screen capture, page capture, visual analysis, device screen (+15)
✅ Not too verbose — description ~35 words (+10)
✅ Not too vague — source types (URL, node, device) specified (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### C. Style Guide (N/A)
Tool integration skill — no text transformation tasks. N/A.

### D. Workflow (60/100)
⚠️ Phase 0 first — Source Detection table indirectly serves as Phase 0 (+15)
❌ Phase numbering — steps exist but no Phase 0, 1, 2... structure (+0)
⚠️ Context injection — no sub-agents but source detection step serves as context (+10)
⚠️ Validation step — response format exists but no explicit output quality validation step (+8)
✅ Error handling — 4 error response types table (+10)
→ Quick Reference flow exists but no Phase structure

**Subtotal: 60/100**

### E. Sub-Agent Design (N/A)
Does not use sub-agents at all. N/A.

### F. Conciseness (75/100)
✅ SKILL.md body < 500 lines — 133 lines (+40)
✅ SKILL.md body < 300 lines — 133 lines, bonus (+10)
✅ No redundant instructions — minimal duplication (+18)
⚠️ "Agent is smart" — Response Format section somewhat detailed, agent could judge on its own (+10)
✅ References linked — 1 reference file link (+15)

**Subtotal: 75/100**

---

## Improvement Recommendations

1. **[High]** Introduce Phase structure: Phase 0 (source detection + requirements analysis), Phase 1 (capture), Phase 2 (analysis/output) → D score +15 expected
2. **[Medium]** Explicit Phase numbering → D score +5 expected
3. **[Low]** Move Response Format section to references/ → F score +5 expected


path: examples/changelog.md
content: # Skill Audit: changelog

**Version**: skill-audit v1.0
**Date**: 2026-05-21
**Target**: /home/node/.openclaw/workspace/skills/changelog/SKILL.md
**Type**: Documentation / Format Conversion
**N/A Dimensions**: E (Sub-Agent Design)
**Redistributed Weights**: A:24%, B:18%, C:24%, D:18%, F:16%

## Score: 85/100 (B)

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Notes |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| A. Structure | 85 | 24% | 20.4 | |
| B. Triggering | 90 | 18% | 16.2 | |
| C. Style Guide | 85 | 24% | 20.4 | |
| D. Workflow | 85 | 18% | 15.3 | |
| E. Sub-Agent Design | N/A | — | — | Does not use sub-agents: N/A |
| F. Conciseness | 80 | 16% | 12.8 | |
| **Total** | | | **85.1** |

## Grade: B

---

## Dimension Details

### A. Structure (85/100)
✅ Frontmatter exists (+15)
✅ name valid: "changelog" — lowercase, hyphens only (+10)
✅ description present — clear (+15)
✅ description has keywords — Korean + English (+10)
✅ No auxiliary files — no README.md, CHANGELOG.md (+10)
✅ references/ organized — 1-level deep, 1 file (+10)
✅ SKILL.md under 500 lines — 142 lines (+10)
✅ No duplication — conventional commits spec in references/ (+5)
✅ Folder name matches name (+15)

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### B. Triggering (90/100)
✅ "What" described — "Generate CHANGELOG.md from git commit history" (+20)
✅ "When" in description — "Use when asked to generate a changelog, create release notes, summarize commits, or document what changed" (+25)
✅ Keywords (Korean) — 체인지로그, 변경 로그, 릴리즈 노트, 커밋 요약, 버전 변경, 변경 사항 (+15)
✅ Keywords (English) — changelog, release notes, commit summary, version history, what changed (+15)
✅ Not too verbose — description ~35 words (+10)
✅ Not too vague — specific with "git commit history" and "conventional commits" (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### C. Style Guide (85/100)
✅ Preservation criteria — "preserve commit messages verbatim as much as possible", "quote Breaking Changes verbatim", "attach commit hashes" (+25)
✅ Compression criteria — "group similar commits in same scope", "chore/ci/style can be compressed", "exclude merge commits" (+20)
✅ Task essence defined — indirect, implicitly defined through "conventional commits parsing" and "category grouping" (+12)
⚠️ Style rules explicit — references Keep a Changelog format, emoji option exists but style rules are thin (+10)
⚠️ Anti-patterns — only "exclude merge commits" level (+5)
→ Practical and concrete preservation/compression criteria

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### D. Workflow (85/100)
✅ Phase 0 first — "Repo Analysis" git log collection, scope determination, version inference (+30)
✅ Phase numbering — Phase 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (+15)
⚠️ Context injection — Phase 0→1→2 sequential flow is clear but no explicit "inject Phase 0 results" wording (+18)
✅ Validation step — Phase 3 has version bump validation, Phase 4 has output format validation (+20)
✅ Error handling — 4 error response types table (+10)

**Subtotal: 85/100**

### E. Sub-Agent Design (N/A)
Does not use sub-agents at all. N/A.

### F. Conciseness (80/100)
✅ SKILL.md body < 500 lines — 142 lines (+40)
✅ SKILL.md body < 300 lines — 142 lines, bonus (+10)
✅ No redundant instructions — minimal duplication (+15)
⚠️ "Agent is smart" — Recognized Types table contains info the agent might know but useful as a guide (+12)
⚠️ References linked — 1 reference file link (+10)

**Subtotal: 80/100**

---

## Improvement Recommendations

1. **[Low]** Add task essence definition: "A changelog is the task of restructuring commit history into consumer-friendly documentation" → C score +8 expected
2. **[Low]** Add anti-patterns: "don't merge feat + fix into one entry", "no arbitrary category reclassification" etc. → C score +5 expected


path: examples/summarize.md
content: # Skill Audit: summarize

**Version**: skill-audit v1.0
**Date**: 2026-05-21
**Target**: /home/node/.openclaw/workspace/skills/summarize/SKILL.md
**Type**: Sub-agent Pipeline
**N/A Dimensions**: None (all dimensions evaluated)

## Score: 88/100 (B)

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Notes |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|-------|
| A. Structure | 90 | 20% | 18.0 | |
| B. Triggering | 95 | 15% | 14.3 | |
| C. Style Guide | 95 | 20% | 19.0 | |
| D. Workflow | 90 | 15% | 13.5 | |
| E. Sub-Agent Design | 72 | 15% | 10.8 | |
| F. Conciseness | 90 | 15% | 13.5 | |
| **Total** | | | **87.0** |

## Grade: B

---

## Dimension Details

### A. Structure (90/100)
✅ Frontmatter exists (+15)
✅ name valid: "summarize" — lowercase, hyphens only (+10)
✅ description present — clear, comprehensive (+15)
✅ description has keywords — Korean + English keywords (+10)
✅ No auxiliary files — no README.md, CHANGELOG.md (+10)
✅ references/ organized — 1-level deep, 3 files (+10)
✅ SKILL.md under 500 lines — 169 lines (+10)
✅ No duplication — parameter mapping and templates in references/ (+5)
✅ Folder name matches name — summarize/SKILL.md (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### B. Triggering (95/100)
✅ "What" described — "Summarize any content..." clear (+20)
✅ "When" in description — "Use when asked to summarize, abstract, digest, condense, shorten, or give a TL;DR" (+25)
✅ Keywords (Korean) — 요약, 짧게 요약, 상세 요약, TL;DR, 챕터 요약, 이모지 요약, 200자, 1000자, 전부 요약, 누락 없이 (+15)
✅ Keywords (English) — summarize, summary, digest, condense, abstract, TLDR, brief (+15)
✅ Not too verbose — description ~50 words, concise (+10)
✅ Not too vague — specific content types listed (+15)
→ Small bonus: diverse keywords for broad trigger coverage

**Subtotal: 95/100**

### C. Style Guide (95/100)
✅ Preservation criteria — core arguments, specific examples, figures and data, quotes, metaphors and analogies specified (+30)
✅ Compression criteria — repeated arguments, supplementary explanations, example lists, intro/conclusion duplication specified (+25)
✅ Task essence defined — "summarization is information restructuring" clear (+20)
✅ Style rules explicit — 7 style-specific table + language-specific rules (+15)
✅ Anti-patterns — "no simple concatenation" etc. specified in Phase 4 (+10)
→ Excellent style guide

**Subtotal: 95/100**

### D. Workflow (90/100)
✅ Phase 0 first — "Input Analysis (★)" marker present (+30)
✅ Phase numbering — Phase 0–5 clear (+15)
✅ Context injection described — "inject Phase 0 results into prompts" (+25)
✅ Validation step — Phase 4 has length/style/language validation (+20)
✅ Error handling — context overflow, rate limit, length over/under, quality degradation responses (+10)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

### E. Sub-Agent Design (72/100)
✅ Prompt template exists — references/subagent-templates.md (+20)
✅ `[ ]` placeholders — "fill template `[ ]` blanks in Phase 0" (+20)
⚠️ Context fields defined — full context, chunk position, preservation list mentioned but detailed context field definitions delegated to references/ (+15)
⚠️ Style rules in template — "see references/subagent-templates.md" but no 3-4 line summary in SKILL.md (+8)
✅ Merge ≠ concatenate — "no simple concatenation — restructure according to Phase 0 topic flow" (+15)
⚠️ Sequential pipeline — parallel (max 2) only mentioned, sequential pipeline not explicitly stated (+5)
→ Template content only in references/ with no core summary in SKILL.md

**Subtotal: 72/100**

### F. Conciseness (90/100)
✅ SKILL.md body < 500 lines — 169 lines (+40)
✅ SKILL.md body < 300 lines — 169 lines, bonus (+10)
✅ No redundant instructions — minimal duplication (+18)
✅ "Agent is smart" — many conversion tables but these are reference materials the agent cannot compute, so justified (+12)
✅ References linked — "See references/parameter-mapping.md", "참조" etc. (+15)

**Subtotal: 90/100**

---

## Improvement Recommendations

1. **[Medium]** Add 3-4 line core style instruction summary from sub-agent template to SKILL.md → E score +7 expected
2. **[Medium]** Explicitly define context fields in SKILL.md (full context, chunk position, preservation list) → E score +5 expected
3. **[Low]** Specify sequential pipeline processing conditions → E score +5 expected


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)