Skill Evaluator (WIP)
Evaluates skills against Anthropic's official best practices for agent skill authoring. Produces structured evaluation reports with scores and actionable recommendations.
Quick Start
- Read the skill's SKILL.md and understand its purpose
- Run automated validation:
scripts/validate_skill.py <skill-path> - Perform manual evaluation against criteria below
- Generate evaluation report with scores and recommendations
Evaluation Workflow
Step 1: Automated Validation
Run the validation script first:
scripts/validate_skill.py <path/to/skill>This checks:
- SKILL.md exists with valid YAML frontmatter
- Name follows conventions (lowercase, hyphens, max 64 chars)
- Description is present and under 1024 chars
- Body is under 500 lines
- File references are one-level deep
Step 2: Manual Evaluation
Evaluate each dimension and assign a score (1-5):
A. Naming (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Gerund form (-ing), clear purpose, memorable |
| 4 | Descriptive, follows conventions |
| 3 | Acceptable but could be clearer |
| 2 | Vague or misleading |
| 1 | Violates naming rules |
Rules: Max 64 chars, lowercase + numbers + hyphens only, no reserved words (anthropic, claude), no XML tags.
Good: processing-pdfs, analyzing-spreadsheets, building-dashboards Bad: pdf, my-skill, ClaudeHelper, anthropic-tools
B. Description (Weight: 20%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Clear functionality + specific activation triggers + third person |
| 4 | Good description with some triggers |
| 3 | Adequate but missing triggers or vague |
| 2 | Too brief or unclear purpose |
| 1 | Missing or unhelpful |
Must include: What the skill does AND when to use it. Good: "Extracts text from PDFs. Use when working with PDF documents for text extraction, form parsing, or content analysis." Bad: "A skill for PDFs." or "Helps with documents."
C. Content Quality (Weight: 30%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Concise, assumes Claude intelligence, actionable instructions |
| 4 | Generally good, minor verbosity |
| 3 | Some unnecessary explanations or redundancy |
| 2 | Overly verbose or confusing |
| 1 | Bloated, explains obvious concepts |
Ask: "Does Claude really need this explanation?" Remove anything Claude already knows.
D. Structure & Organization (Weight: 25%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent progressive disclosure, clear navigation, optimal length |
| 4 | Good organization, appropriate file splits |
| 3 | Acceptable but could be better organized |
| 2 | Poor organization, missing references, or bloated SKILL.md |
| 1 | No structure, everything dumped in SKILL.md |
Check:
- SKILL.md under 500 lines
- References are one-level deep (no nested chains)
- Long reference files (>100 lines) have table of contents
- Uses forward slashes in all paths
E. Degrees of Freedom (Weight: 10%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 | Perfect match: high freedom for flexible tasks, low for fragile operations |
| 4 | Generally appropriate freedom levels |
| 3 | Acceptable but could be better calibrated |
| 2 | Mismatched: too rigid or too loose |
| 1 | Completely wrong freedom level for the task type |
Guideline:
- High freedom (text): Multiple valid approaches, context-dependent
- Medium freedom (parameterized): Preferred pattern exists, some variation OK
- Low freedom (specific scripts): Fragile operations, exact sequence required
F. Anti-Pattern Check (Weight: 5%)
Deduct points for each anti-pattern found:
- Too many options without clear recommendation (-1)
- Time-sensitive information with date conditionals (-1)
- Inconsistent terminology (-1)
- Windows-style paths (backslashes) (-1)
- Deeply nested references (more than one level) (-2)
- Scripts that punt error handling to Claude (-1)
- Magic numbers without justification (-1)
Step 3: Generate Report
Use this template:
# Skill Evaluation Report: [skill-name]
## Summary
- **Overall Score**: X.X/5.0
- **Recommendation**: [Ready for publication / Needs minor improvements / Needs major revision]
## Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Naming | X/5 | 10% | X.XX |
| Description | X/5 | 20% | X.XX |
| Content Quality | X/5 | 30% | X.XX |
| Structure | X/5 | 25% | X.XX |
| Degrees of Freedom | X/5 | 10% | X.XX |
| Anti-Patterns | X/5 | 5% | X.XX |
| **Total** | | 100% | **X.XX** |
## Strengths
- [List 2-3 things done well]
## Areas for Improvement
- [List specific issues with actionable fixes]
## Anti-Patterns Found
- [List any anti-patterns detected]
## Recommendations
1. [Priority 1 fix]
2. [Priority 2 fix]
3. [Priority 3 fix]
## Pre-Publication Checklist
- [ ] Description is specific with activation triggers
- [ ] SKILL.md under 500 lines
- [ ] One-level-deep file references
- [ ] Forward slashes in all paths
- [ ] No time-sensitive information
- [ ] Consistent terminology
- [ ] Concrete examples provided
- [ ] Scripts handle errors explicitly
- [ ] All configuration values justified
- [ ] Required packages listed
- [ ] Tested with Haiku, Sonnet, OpusScore Interpretation
| Score Range | Rating | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5 - 5.0 | Excellent | Ready for publication |
| 4.0 - 4.4 | Good | Minor improvements recommended |
| 3.0 - 3.9 | Acceptable | Several improvements needed |
| 2.0 - 2.9 | Needs Work | Major revision required |
| 1.0 - 1.9 | Poor | Fundamental redesign needed |
References
- references/evaluation-criteria.md - Detailed evaluation criteria with examples
- references/scoring-rubric.md - Complete scoring rubric and edge cases
*Skill Evaluator v1.1 - Enhanced*
🔄 Workflow
Kaynak: Google Engineering Practices - Code Review & Anthropic System Prompts
Aşama 1: Structural Analysis
- Compliance: Dosya yapısı (
scripts/,references/) standarta uyuyor mu? - Metadata: YAML frontmatter (
name,description) eksiksiz ve valid mi? - Modularity: Skill çok mu büyük? Bölünmesi gerekiyor mu? (Single Responsibility Principle).
Aşama 2: Content & Semantic Review
- Clarity: Talimatlar emir kipiyle (Imperative) ve net yazılmış mı? Belirsizlik var mı?
- Context Efficiency: "Gereksiz nezaket" veya "aşırı açıklama" var mı? Token israfı önlenmeli.
- Safety: Skill tehlikeli bir işlem (dosya silme, yetkisiz erişim) öneriyor mu?
Aşama 3: Functionality Verification
- Script Audit:
scripts/içindeki Python/Bash kodları güvenli ve çalışır durumda mı? - Reference Check:
references/dosyaları gerçekten gerekli mi? YoksaSKILL.mdiçine mi gömülmeli? - Usability: Bir kullanıcı (veya ajan) bu skill'i okuyup hemen kullanabilir mi?
Kontrol Noktaları
| Aşama | Doğrulama |
|---|---|
| 1 | Skill adı ve açıklaması birbiriyle tutarlı mı? |
| 2 | Anti-pattern (örn: Hardcoded path) tespit edildi mi? |
| 3 | Puanlama rubriğine göre objektif bir skor (1-5) verildi mi? |