Agent skill

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

by levnikolaevich in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

MITAuto-check passed

Install Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

skills CLI
$ npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-81-skill-reviewer -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills ln-81-skill-reviewer --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/skill-maintenance-suite/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer .claude/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
ln-81-skill-reviewer
GitHub stars
574
Token cost
~3.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,815 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
31
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

  • Works in 5 steps: Result: The exact skill-specific verdict… → Scope: Reviewed/changed scope,… → Evidence: Skill-specific fields below;… → …
  • Boundaries and distribution contracts
  • SKILL.md covers Tool Routing, Checklist, Verdict and Self-Check, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

The repository describes itself as: Help your AI agent finish the job: solve the right problem, keep changes focused, and show what was verified. For Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Boundaries and distribution contracts
  • Not product code

Example prompts

  • “Use the ln-81-skill-reviewer skill to review skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code”
  • “/ln-81-skill-reviewer”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual…

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 0ce8796. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer loads about 3.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 28 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,815 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~28
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills at commit 0ce8796, republished under its MIT licence (© levnikolaevich). 1,815 words, ~3,516 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
ln-81-skill-reviewer
description
Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

Skill Reviewer

Goal: Review skill quality and configured distribution surfaces without modifying reviewed source or external systems. Distinguish static contract assurance from observed execution behavior.

Execution contract: The checklist defines completion. Track each item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, tool failure, a zero exit status, or a self-reported success is not proof; only the observed outcome is. Reconcile after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. When no one can answer during the run, state the exact question and apply the skill's verdict for the remaining gap instead of waiting or guessing. Scale depth to material risk without skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety order; otherwise choose an appropriate verification method. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence; no other skill, named artifact, or complete lifecycle is required. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant source versions, dirty changes, configuration, and environment; invalidate only affected claims. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, current state, and unresolved evidence. For long work, return a compact continuation record or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Prepare authorized work before required approval. If blocked by an instruction, cite its exact source and unresolved boundary; do not invent approval gates from caution.

Tool Routing

NeedPreferred capabilityFallback
Repository scope and evidenceNative file search, focused reads, and Git diffEquivalent read-only shell commands
Frontmatter and skill structureRepository-defined or host-native skill validatorManual YAML, path, naming, and repository-contract checks
Plugin integrationRepository-defined plugin validator plus manifest parsingManual manifest and applicable catalog comparison
Host discoveryHost-native validator for every configured distribution surfaceManual catalog, manifest, and source-path inspection
Current host rulesOfficial host documentationMark the claim UNVERIFIED when unavailable
Behavioral independenceFresh subagent or clean contextSeparate self-review passes with reduced-confidence disclosure

Use external research only for current host behavior or a changing standard. Do not use web sources to override the repository's actual files, installed versions, or local validation output.

Tool absence is not itself a skill defect. Apply the documented fallback and use BLOCKED only when the missing capability prevents a reliable verdict.

Checklist

Establish scope and evidence
  • Resolve target paths, Git diff, staged and untracked files; establish review mode: static content/distribution review, or behavioral validation when requested or warranted and permitted. Honor an explicit no-testing instruction; do not run scenarios or delegate evaluation in static-only mode.
  • Read the repository instructions, skill contracts, and every configured host catalog before judging repository-specific conventions; do not require a catalog that the repository does not distribute.
  • Separate primary skills from manifests, catalogs, and documentation affected by the same change.
  • Confirm the repository-defined canonical skill layout; treat unauthorized, stale, or divergent host-specific copies as defects, while permitting adapters or generated copies that repository policy explicitly requires.
  • Confirm frontmatter and folder naming satisfy the repository contract and each target host; require only name and description when that is the declared local convention rather than imposing it universally.
  • Check that each description states the capability, positive trigger, and important near-negative boundary.
  • Check that descriptions stay within the host limit and avoid claims broader than the workflow supports.
  • Confirm each skill is standalone: no required skill, MCP server, tracker, coordinator, worker, or shared runtime.
  • Apply the repository's declared completion convention; when an ordered checklist is the Definition of Done, flag a duplicate completion section.
  • Preserve domain algorithms, tool routing, safety gates, evidence, verdicts, output, and residual risks. For removed checks, identify the retained obligation owner or explain why the check does not support the Goal; item count alone proves neither loss nor preservation.
  • Flag generic explanations that add no decision value; preserve non-obvious domain knowledge and concrete safeguards even when no prior failure was recorded.
  • Check content hierarchy and single-source ownership: keep each rule in the narrowest canonical section and flag repeated or contradictory guidance across the body, supporting files, manifests, and repository instructions.
  • Flag filler, generated-summary prose, copied implementation or business logic, and volatile versions, paths, counts, defaults, or host behavior that can be replaced by a stable contract, authoritative source, capability description, or explicit update trigger.
  • Verify every required capability has an available tool path, a credible fallback, or an explicit BLOCKED outcome.
  • Check that each skill's mutation boundary matches its declared outcome; read-only workflows must not acquire implicit write authority.
  • For optimization or experiment skills, require an evidence-based retain, discard, or rollback decision when they mutate state.
  • For test-building or other bounded writers, confirm they cannot repair product code or touch unapproved external state unless their declared contract explicitly authorizes it.
  • Trace the text through normal completion, missing tools, insufficient context, dirty Git state, failed commands, and conflicting evidence. Check prerequisites precede dependent actions, stop conditions permit safe progress, and verdicts cover failure states without contradiction.
  • Check input/output compatibility, evidence invalidation, continuation, and instruction conflicts.
  • Check that the output contract distinguishes facts, inferences, missing evidence, verdict, and residual risk.
  • Compare neighboring triggers with each skill's Goal; require instructions to support an outcome, evidence need, or scope/safety constraint. Flag irrelevant work, missing obligations, and ambiguous branches without making skills depend on each other.
Repository Validation
  • Discover and run every repository-required skill validator for the changed skill directories; do not assume a validator name or location absent from repository evidence.
  • If a required validator is unavailable, manually validate YAML parsing, naming, description constraints, and required file layout against the repository and host contracts.
  • Run every repository-required plugin or package validator for affected distribution units.
  • Run each host-native strict validator when its corresponding catalog or manifest exists; record its actual coverage and do not treat marketplace validation as skill-frontmatter validation unless the host demonstrably traverses those skills.
  • Parse all configured catalogs; compare plugin names and ordering only when repository policy requires cross-host parity.
  • Confirm every declared catalog source, manifest path, and skill path exists.
  • Confirm duplicated metadata such as plugin descriptions agree wherever the repository requires parity.
  • For marketplace repositories, confirm stable identifiers have not changed unintentionally; display branding is not an identifier substitute.
  • Search for stale names, deleted paths, draft markers, MCP coupling, orchestration terms, and generated copies.
  • Apply line-count targets only when repository policy defines them, and treat them as a maintenance constraint rather than evidence of behavioral quality.
Show full SKILL.md (729 more words)Show less
Behavioral Review When In Scope
  • Apply this phase only when behavioral execution is in scope and authorized; otherwise mark its execution-only items CLEARED with the scope reason and state that behavior was not tested. Static inspection does not prove activation or execution quality.
  • Derive representative positive prompts from the stated trigger rather than from the skill title alone.
  • Derive close negative prompts from adjacent capabilities and likely ambiguous user wording.
  • Verify the skill would activate for the positive prompts and remain inactive for close negatives.
  • Walk at least one normal scenario, one missing-evidence scenario, and one safety-boundary scenario.
  • When the skill writes code or other artifacts, evaluate a real agent-produced result and diff against an independent task contract; do not substitute prose review, answer brevity, or static inspection for execution behavior.
  • For skills that implement bug fixes, test a report naming one caller while a sibling shares the faulty logic. Verify the shared invariant and valid behavior through both entrypoints; reject symptom-only repair. Keep the sibling oracle out of the task prompt.
  • For code-writing skills that promise reuse, provide a canonical helper whose required edge behavior differs from a plausible reimplementation. Verify reuse in the produced code and preservation of that behavior; happy-path output is insufficient. Keep the helper discoverable without naming its location in the task prompt.
  • Grade task completeness, correctness, safety, scope containment, and cleanup independently; treat code or token reduction as supporting evidence only after the required outcome passes.
  • For complex or high-risk changes, use available fresh independent contexts with only the skill and raw task artifacts.
  • Keep expected findings, intended fixes, and prior conclusions out of independent evaluation inputs.
  • Treat a forward test that succeeds only with leaked context as a skill defect.
  • Check independent contexts for contamination from globally installed skills, hooks, plugins, user instructions, environment settings, caches, or artifacts; prove target-skill activation and invalidate an arm whose behavior cannot be attributed reliably.
  • Do not create or retain an evaluation harness unless a concrete recurring failure proves it necessary.
Evidence Rules
  • Cite each finding to an exact file and the smallest useful line or section.
  • Distinguish validator failures from manual concerns and speculative improvements.
  • Require deterministic validator evidence, an authorized reproduction, or a complete static contradiction/failure path before assigning blocking severity; do not execute scenarios excluded by the review mode.
  • Record commands executed, exit status, and material output without exposing secrets.
  • Report coverage gaps when a required host or clean-context test cannot be run. Keep any permitted diagnostic artifact temporary, outside canonical plugin directories, and disclose it; do not stage, publish, or create external state during review.

Verdict

  • PASS — all required checks for the declared mode pass with no material concern; static-only PASS does not certify execution behavior.
  • CONCERNS — no confirmed blocking defect in the reviewed scope, but bounded non-blocking uncertainty remains; do not infer untested publication or behavioral readiness.
  • FAIL — a confirmed defect can cause wrong triggering, unsafe behavior, broken installation, or an invalid contract.
  • BLOCKED — required evidence or tooling is unavailable and no credible fallback exists.

Self-Check

  • Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.

Output Contract

Report in the user's language, in this order; label all five fields and state each fact once. Use controlled plain language: one fact per sentence, usually under 20 words, active voice, and one term per concept, with no synonyms for verdicts, IDs, or states. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:

  1. Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.

Skill-specific evidence: Target skills and distribution surfaces; structural/host parity, trigger boundaries, static versus behavioral coverage, and validator results. Findings need severity, exact location, impact, evidence, and minimal correction. Distinguish confirmed defects, manual concerns, and speculative improvements; report unavailable clean-context or runtime evidence and disclosed temporary artifacts.

© levnikolaevich, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in plugins/skill-maintenance-suite/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer of levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 0ce8796

Compare with similar skills

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Ln 81 Skill Reviewer this skilllevnikolaevich/claude-code-skills574—~3.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Review Hog Perspective Contracts SecurityPostHog/posthog40k—~1kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Contract Reviewjeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.8k—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Contract Reviewanbeime/skill7.8k—~1.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Skill Contract Reviewerrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch67k1 repos~450Automated safety check: PassMIT
Contract Reviewmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1.4k—~857Automated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Contract Review

    jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace

    Orchestrates a comprehensive multi-agent contract review that analyzes risk, plain-English translation, missing protections, and compliance in parallel.

    2.8k GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Contract Review

    anbeime/skill

    律师助理与法律助手、项目管理专家在审核合同、排查条款风险时必备。自动执行基础、商业、法律三层审查,仅添加批注不改原文,一键生成带批注合同、审查摘要、综合意见及业务流程图,让合同风控与业务梳理更高效专业。

    7.8k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Skill Contract Reviewer

    rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch

    Validates an Agent Skill package against a portable contract with a Python checker, then picks the smallest set of instruction, capability or lifecycle primitives for the task.

    67k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~450 tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Contract Review

    mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

    Review and summarise any contract or legal agreement. An agent skill from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills.

    1.4k GitHub stars~857 tokensUpdated yesterday
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Contract Review

    cbrock84/headcount

    Reviews and negotiates commercial agreements — MSAs, SOWs, order forms, NDAs, vendor and data-processing agreements — identifying material risk, proposing positions, and recommending a path rather…

    2k GitHub stars~919 tokensUpdated 23 days ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

More from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

All 31 skills in this repo
  • Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

    574 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 11 Opportunity Evaluator

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Evaluates new product opportunities through demand, channels and economics before committing to build.

    574 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 12 Product Requirements Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines product requirements, business rules and acceptance criteria for a committed intent; edits product docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 13 Interaction Design Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Designs user flows, interaction states and mockups for a defined product scope; does not implement UI code.

    574 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 21 System Design Baseline Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines measurable architecture drivers and constraints before system design; edits architecture docs only.

    574 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 22 Current Architecture Documenter

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Documents current architecture from implementation evidence; does not propose a target or audit fitness.

    574 GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

What does Ln 81 Skill Reviewer do?

Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code. Ln 81 Skill Reviewer is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

When should I use Ln 81 Skill Reviewer?

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer fits situations like: boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

How do I install Ln 81 Skill Reviewer in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-81-skill-reviewer -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/skill-maintenance-suite/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .claude/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Ln 81 Skill Reviewer in Codex?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-81-skill-reviewer -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/skill-maintenance-suite/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .agents/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Ln 81 Skill Reviewer in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-81-skill-reviewer -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer, .gemini/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer, .github/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer and .opencode/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer in your project.

What does Ln 81 Skill Reviewer need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Ln 81 Skill Reviewer is instructions for the agent only.

Does Ln 81 Skill Reviewer access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Ln 81 Skill Reviewer safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Ln 81 Skill Reviewer use?

Ln 81 Skill Reviewer is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Ln 81 Skill Reviewer use?

About 3.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 14k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Ln 81 Skill Reviewer?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Ln 81 Skill Reviewer: Review Hog Perspective Contracts Security (PostHog/posthog, 40k stars), Contract Review (jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace, 2.8k stars), Contract Review (anbeime/skill, 7.8k stars) and Skill Contract Reviewer (rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch, 67k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Ln 81 Skill Reviewer?

levnikolaevich (a GitHub user) maintains it in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills, which has 574 GitHub stars. The repository holds 31 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

Source: levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.