$npx -y skills add Dataslayer-AI/Marketing-skills --skill ds-auditInternal development tool that performs a comprehensive quality audit of all marketing skills and agents. Reviews description overlap, format consistency, feature adoption, and structural patterns. Use when the user says "audit skills", "skill quality review", "check skill health
| 1 | # Skill quality audit (ds-audit) |
| 2 | |
| 3 | You are a Claude Code skills architect performing a periodic quality review. |
| 4 | Your job is to find structural problems, inconsistencies, and missed |
| 5 | opportunities across the entire skills collection — not just validate |
| 6 | individual files (that's ds-lint's job). |
| 7 | |
| 8 | ## Process |
| 9 | |
| 10 | ### Step 1 — Load all skills and agents |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Read every SKILL.md and agent .md file in this repository. |
| 13 | For each, extract: |
| 14 | - Full frontmatter (all fields) |
| 15 | - Section headings structure |
| 16 | - Output format structure |
| 17 | - Tool usage patterns |
| 18 | - Length in lines |
| 19 | |
| 20 | ### Step 2 — Run the five audit checks |
| 21 | |
| 22 | #### Check 1: Description overlap analysis |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Compare every pair of skill descriptions and identify: |
| 25 | - **Direct overlap**: two descriptions contain the same triggering phrase |
| 26 | (e.g., both mention "weekly report") |
| 27 | - **Semantic overlap**: two descriptions would plausibly trigger for the |
| 28 | same input even though the exact words differ |
| 29 | - **Coverage gaps**: common user intents that no description covers |
| 30 | |
| 31 | Present as a matrix: |
| 32 | |
| 33 | | Skill A | Skill B | Overlapping phrases | Risk level | |
| 34 | |---------|---------|---------------------|------------| |
| 35 | | ... | ... | ... | High/Med/Low | |
| 36 | |
| 37 | And list any coverage gaps: |
| 38 | - "[user intent X]" → no skill description matches this |
| 39 | |
| 40 | #### Check 2: Format consistency |
| 41 | |
| 42 | Compare the output format sections across all skills: |
| 43 | - Do all skills use the same heading hierarchy? (### for report title, #### for sections) |
| 44 | - Do all skills use tables with consistent column naming? |
| 45 | - Do all skills have a "Tone and output rules" section? |
| 46 | - Do all skills have a "Related skills" section? |
| 47 | - Do all skills use the same date range notation? |
| 48 | |
| 49 | Present inconsistencies as a table: |
| 50 | |
| 51 | | Pattern | Skills that follow | Skills that don't | Fix needed | |
| 52 | |---------|-------------------|-------------------|------------| |
| 53 | | ... | ... | ... | ... | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | #### Check 3: Feature adoption |
| 56 | |
| 57 | Check which advanced Claude Code features each skill uses: |
| 58 | |
| 59 | | Feature | ds-brain | ds-paid-audit | ds-channel-report | ds-seo-weekly | ds-content-perf | ds-churn-signals | ds-report-pdf | |
| 60 | |---------|----------|---------------|-------------------|---------------|-----------------|------------------|---------------| |
| 61 | | allowed-tools | | | | | | | | |
| 62 | | model | | | | | | | | |
| 63 | | argument-hint | | | | | | | | |
| 64 | | $ARGUMENTS | | | | | | | | |
| 65 | | !`context injection` | | | | | | | | |
| 66 | | ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} | | | | | | | | |
| 67 | | disable-model-invocation | | | | | | | | |
| 68 | | Related skills section | | | | | | | | |
| 69 | |
| 70 | Mark each cell as: Yes / No / N/A |
| 71 | |
| 72 | #### Check 4: Agent-orchestrator alignment |
| 73 | |
| 74 | For ds-brain and its four subagents: |
| 75 | - Does each agent's output format match what ds-brain expects to receive? |
| 76 | - Does ds-brain's Step 2 prompt match the data each agent fetches? |
| 77 | - Are there data points ds-brain analyzes in Step 3 that no agent provides? |
| 78 | - Are there agent outputs that ds-brain never uses? |
| 79 | |
| 80 | Present misalignments as specific findings. |
| 81 | |
| 82 | #### Check 5: Complexity and maintainability |
| 83 | |
| 84 | For each file: |
| 85 | - Line count and whether it's approaching the 500-line limit |
| 86 | - Number of steps/sections |
| 87 | - Ratio of instructions to examples (too many examples = noise) |
| 88 | - Any duplicated content between skills (copy-paste patterns) |
| 89 | |
| 90 | ### Step 3 — Prioritized recommendations |
| 91 | |
| 92 | After all five checks, produce a prioritized list of improvements: |
| 93 | |
| 94 | --- |
| 95 | |
| 96 | ### Audit recommendations |
| 97 | |
| 98 | #### Critical (fix now) |
| 99 | 1. [Finding] — [which files] — [specific fix] |
| 100 | |
| 101 | #### Important (fix this sprint) |
| 102 | 1. [Finding] — [which files] — [specific fix] |
| 103 | |
| 104 | #### Nice to have (backlog) |
| 105 | 1. [Finding] — [which files] — [specific fix] |
| 106 | |
| 107 | --- |
| 108 | |
| 109 | ### Step 4 — Score card |
| 110 | |
| 111 | End with a simple health score: |
| 112 | |
| 113 | | Dimension | Score (1-5) | Notes | |
| 114 | |-----------|-------------|-------| |
| 115 | | Description quality | | | |
| 116 | | Triggering accuracy | | | |
| 117 | | Format consistency | | | |
| 118 | | Feature adoption | | | |
| 119 | | Agent alignment | | | |
| 120 | | Maintainability | | | |
| 121 | | **Overall** | | | |
| 122 | |
| 123 | ## Rules |
| 124 | |
| 125 | - This audit is about the collection as a whole, not individual file validation. |
| 126 | Individual file issues are ds-lint's responsibility. |
| 127 | - Be specific in recommendations. "Improve descriptions" is not useful. |
| 128 | "Add 'CPA analysis' as a triggering phrase to ds-paid-audit description" is. |
| 129 | - If the collection is in good shape, say so. Do not manufacture problems. |
| 130 | - Write in the same language the user is using. |