skill-review

Name: skill-review
Author: techygarg

165stars12forks

How to install skill-review?

techygarg/lattice/skill-review

$npx -y skills add techygarg/lattice --skill skill-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Deep behavioral audit of a Lattice skill — proposes 3 review personas relevant to the skill, runs independent scenario analysis from each persona's perspective, then merges only the high-confidence, practical findings into a severity-ordered gap report with proposed fixes. Struct

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Skill Review
2
3	Core responsibility: Find real behavioral gaps in a Lattice skill by reviewing it through three independent personas. Each persona sees the skill with different eyes, cares about different things, and may surface different gaps. The combined findings should be more practical and complete than any single review.
4
5	Input: One skill path or skill name.
6
7	Output: A unified findings report — only the high-confidence, practical gaps from all three personas, merged, deduplicated, pruned, and ordered by severity — with proposed fixes.
8
9	Review standard: Prefer omission over speculation. Only report findings you are highly confident would surface in normal use, belong to this skill's responsibility, and would materially improve outcomes if fixed. A valid review may conclude that no material practical gaps remain.
10
11	How to verify this skill did its job:
12	- Every reported finding is grounded in a realistic scenario and tied to specific evidence in the skill
13	- Zero findings is acceptable if no high-confidence practical gaps remain
14	- Every gap has a specific proposed fix, not just a flag
15	- Overlapping findings from multiple personas are merged into one entry with a note that multiple perspectives agree
16	- Multiple personas agreeing raises confidence only after the finding survives the practicality filter
17	- The final report is ordered: critical gaps first, warnings second, observations last — or explicitly says no material practical gaps were found
18	- After fixes are applied, a second run of this skill on the same skill file shows no high-confidence practical gaps
19
20	---
21
22	## Step 1: Read the skill
23
24	Read the full SKILL.md and all referenced files (defaults.md, template.md, references/).
25
26	Form a clear understanding of:
27	- What the skill claims to do and who uses it
28	- What it produces (documents, reports, code, changes)
29	- What its inputs are and what states they can be in
30	- Where it sits in the Lattice pipeline (upstream / downstream connections)
31
32	If the skill is composed by molecules, consumes refiner output, or depends on other skills, read the relevant upstream/downstream files too. Review against actual runtime usage, not an imagined standalone use case.
33
34	---
35
36	## Step 2: Propose 3 review personas
37
38	Based on what the skill does and who it serves, propose 3 personas whose perspectives would surface the most useful gaps.
39
40	Persona selection logic:
41
42	\| If the skill... \| Consider personas like... \|
43	\|---\|---\|
44	\| Is a molecule used by product/BA people \| Senior PM, Business Analyst, Lead Developer consuming the output \|
45	\| Is an atom enforcing code quality \| Code reviewer, Junior developer following the rules, Architect checking for structural gaps \|
46	\| Is a refiner configuring standards \| Team lead setting standards, New team member onboarding, AI assistant consuming the standards doc \|
47	\| Is a dev-tool skill (forge, validator, sync) \| Lattice maintainer, First-time skill creator, Experienced developer new to Lattice \|
48	\| Spans product + technical audiences \| One product persona, one practitioner persona, one technical persona \|
49
50	Present 3 proposed personas with a one-line rationale for each:
51
52	"For [skill-name], I'd review from these three perspectives:
53	1. [Persona A] — because [why this skill matters to them / what they'd be looking for]
54	2. [Persona B] — because [different angle this persona brings]
55	3. [Persona C] — because [third angle, ideally the consumer of the skill's output]
56
57	Want to use these, swap any out, or add your own?"
58
59	Wait for the user to confirm or adjust before proceeding.
60
61	STOP: do NOT proceed to Step 3 until personas are agreed.
62
63	---
64
65	## Step 3: Persona analysis (run all three independently)
66
67	For each persona in sequence, fully inhabit that perspective. Forget the other personas while you are in one.
68
69	### For each persona, run this analysis:
70
71	3a — Scenario generation
72
73	Generate the smallest realistic set of scenarios needed to stress this skill (typically 4–6; do not force all scenario types). Consider:
74	- The

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

skill-review

165stars12forks

View on GitHub

How to install skill-review?

techygarg/lattice/skill-review

$npx -y skills add techygarg/lattice --skill skill-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Skill Review
2
3	Core responsibility: Find real behavioral gaps in a Lattice skill by reviewing it through three independent personas. Each persona sees the skill with different eyes, cares about different things, and may surface different gaps. The combined findings should be more practical and complete than any single review.
4
5	Input: One skill path or skill name.
6
7	Output: A unified findings report — only the high-confidence, practical gaps from all three personas, merged, deduplicated, pruned, and ordered by severity — with proposed fixes.
8
9	Review standard: Prefer omission over speculation. Only report findings you are highly confident would surface in normal use, belong to this skill's responsibility, and would materially improve outcomes if fixed. A valid review may conclude that no material practical gaps remain.
10
11	How to verify this skill did its job:
12	- Every reported finding is grounded in a realistic scenario and tied to specific evidence in the skill
13	- Zero findings is acceptable if no high-confidence practical gaps remain
14	- Every gap has a specific proposed fix, not just a flag
15	- Overlapping findings from multiple personas are merged into one entry with a note that multiple perspectives agree
16	- Multiple personas agreeing raises confidence only after the finding survives the practicality filter
17	- The final report is ordered: critical gaps first, warnings second, observations last — or explicitly says no material practical gaps were found
18	- After fixes are applied, a second run of this skill on the same skill file shows no high-confidence practical gaps
19
20	---
21
22	## Step 1: Read the skill
23
24	Read the full SKILL.md and all referenced files (defaults.md, template.md, references/).
25
26	Form a clear understanding of:
27	- What the skill claims to do and who uses it
28	- What it produces (documents, reports, code, changes)
29	- What its inputs are and what states they can be in
30	- Where it sits in the Lattice pipeline (upstream / downstream connections)
31
32	If the skill is composed by molecules, consumes refiner output, or depends on other skills, read the relevant upstream/downstream files too. Review against actual runtime usage, not an imagined standalone use case.
33
34	---
35
36	## Step 2: Propose 3 review personas
37
38	Based on what the skill does and who it serves, propose 3 personas whose perspectives would surface the most useful gaps.
39
40	Persona selection logic:
41
42	\| If the skill... \| Consider personas like... \|
43	\|---\|---\|
44	\| Is a molecule used by product/BA people \| Senior PM, Business Analyst, Lead Developer consuming the output \|
45	\| Is an atom enforcing code quality \| Code reviewer, Junior developer following the rules, Architect checking for structural gaps \|
46	\| Is a refiner configuring standards \| Team lead setting standards, New team member onboarding, AI assistant consuming the standards doc \|
47	\| Is a dev-tool skill (forge, validator, sync) \| Lattice maintainer, First-time skill creator, Experienced developer new to Lattice \|
48	\| Spans product + technical audiences \| One product persona, one practitioner persona, one technical persona \|
49
50	Present 3 proposed personas with a one-line rationale for each:
51
52	"For [skill-name], I'd review from these three perspectives:
53	1. [Persona A] — because [why this skill matters to them / what they'd be looking for]
54	2. [Persona B] — because [different angle this persona brings]
55	3. [Persona C] — because [third angle, ideally the consumer of the skill's output]
56
57	Want to use these, swap any out, or add your own?"
58
59	Wait for the user to confirm or adjust before proceeding.
60
61	STOP: do NOT proceed to Step 3 until personas are agreed.
62
63	---
64
65	## Step 3: Persona analysis (run all three independently)
66
67	For each persona in sequence, fully inhabit that perspective. Forget the other personas while you are in one.
68
69	### For each persona, run this analysis:
70
71	3a — Scenario generation
72
73	Generate the smallest realistic set of scenarios needed to stress this skill (typically 4–6; do not force all scenario types). Consider:
74	- The

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type