Generated banner for Review Skill
Generated logo for Review Skill

Review Skill

MongoDBOfficialCreated by mongodb

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Agent tooling
  • Apache-2.0
  • Medium risk

From the author

Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise SMEs on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent Skill.
— the description by mongodb

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

This skill provides a structured process for SMEs to review Agent Skills before publication. It combines automated structural validation via a CLI tool with LLM-based content scoring to identify areas for improvement. The workflow guides users through prerequisite checks, structural validation, content evaluation, and the generation of a comprehensive review summary.

What it does

  • Performs structural validation of Agent Skills to detect errors and warnings.
  • Evaluates skill content quality using LLM-based scoring.
  • Assesses content novelty to determine the value added by the skill.
  • Provides a standardized summary report including action items and recommendations.
  • Guides users through prerequisite installation and environment configuration.
  • Offers a self-assessment framework for reviewing skill dimensions.

When to use it

  • When preparing an Agent Skill for publication.
  • When you need to verify the structural integrity of a skill directory.
  • When you want to assess the content quality and novelty of a skill.
  • When you need a structured report to guide revisions for an Agent Skill.

Advantages

  • Automates the detection of structural issues that block publication.
  • Provides objective scoring metrics for content quality and novelty.
  • Helps identify redundant content that can be compressed or removed.
  • Standardizes the review process across different skill authors.
  • Offers actionable feedback based on specific scoring dimensions.

Usage examples

“Review my agent skill located at ./my-new-skill”
The agent will initiate the review workflow, check for prerequisites, run structural validation, and provide a summary report.
“I want to perform a full quality review of my skill including LLM scoring.”
The agent will configure the environment for LLM scoring, verify the Claude CLI, and generate a detailed report with novelty and quality scores.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/mongodb/review-skill/download
  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip review-skill.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by mongodb

Review Skill Workflow

You are helping an SME review an Agent Skill before publishing. This is a multi-step process: determine environment, verify prerequisites, run structural validation, review content, optionally run LLM scoring, and interpret results. Follow every step in order.

Step 0: Determine Environment

Check for saved configuration:

cat ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml 2>/dev/null

If the state file exists with prereqs_passed: true, offer:

Found saved settings — configured for [full/structural-only] reviews.

  1. Continue with saved settings — skip to Step 2

  2. Re-run prerequisite checks

  3. Change environment — switch between full and structural-only

Option 1: read llm_scoring from the file and skip to Step 2. Options 2-3: continue below.

If no state file exists, or the user chose to re-check/change, ask:

LLM scoring evaluates content quality across multiple dimensions.

  1. Yes, run LLM scoring — full review with LLM scoring

  2. No, skip LLM scoring — structural validation only

Option 1: set LLM_SCORING=true. Option 2: set LLM_SCORING=false. Run Step 1a only, then jump to Step 2.

Step 1: Verify Prerequisites

1a. Check for skill-validator binary
skill-validator --version

If not found, search common locations (/usr/local/bin, /opt/homebrew/bin, ~/go/bin). If found but not on PATH, tell the user. If not found anywhere, follow references/install-skill-validator.md.

If --version is not at least v1.5.1, help the user upgrade with brew upgrade skill-validator or go install github.com/agent-ecosystem/skill-validator/cmd/skill-validator@latest.

Do NOT proceed until this succeeds.

1b. Check for claude CLI (LLM scoring only)

If LLM_SCORING=true, verify the Claude CLI is available:

claude --version

If not found, tell the user to install Claude Code:

The user must authenticate by running claude interactively before continuing.

Do NOT proceed with LLM scoring until this succeeds.

Save state after prerequisites pass

Persist state so future runs skip this step. Replace <true or false> with the actual LLM_SCORING value:

mkdir -p ~/.config/skill-validator
cat > ~/.config/skill-validator/review-state.yaml << 'EOF'
prereqs_passed: true
llm_scoring: <true or false>
EOF

Step 2: Locate the Skill

Ask the user for the path to the skill they want to review, unless they have already provided it. Verify the path contains a SKILL.md file:

ls <path>/SKILL.md

If SKILL.md does not exist at the given path, tell the user this is not a valid skill directory and ask them to provide the correct path.

Step 3: Run Structural Validation

Run the full check suite:

skill-validator check <path>

Capture the exit code:

Exit codeMeaning
0Clean — no errors or warnings
1Errors found — must fix before publishing
2Warnings only — review but not blocking
3CLI/usage error — check the command

Exit 0: proceed. Exit 2: note warnings, proceed. Exit 1: list errors — these are blocking. The user must fix them before the skill can be published. Do NOT proceed to LLM scoring if exit code is 1.

Step 4: Content Review

Read the SKILL.md and any reference files, then evaluate each check below. Report which checks pass and which do not, with specific details on what is missing.

CheckCriteria
ExamplesDoes the skill provide examples of expected inputs and outputs?
Edge casesDoes the skill document common edge cases or failure modes?
Scope-gatingDoes the skill define when to stop/continue, prerequisites, and conditions for branching paths?
MongoDB data accessIf the skill needs MongoDB contextual data, does it instruct agents to use the MCP server for auth and tool calls? Skip if not applicable.

Flag any failing checks as areas the SME should address. These are not blocking but should be resolved before publishing for best results.

Step 5: LLM Scoring and Interpretation

If LLM_SCORING=false, skip to Step 6.

If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Run LLM Scoring" and "Interpret LLM Scores" sections of references/llm-scoring.md.

Step 6: Present the Review Summary

If LLM_SCORING=true, follow the "Full Review Summary" section of references/llm-scoring.md. Include any failing content review checks from Step 4 in the action items.

If LLM_SCORING=false, present structural result, content review result, areas to address, and a self-assessment checklist using the scoring dimensions from assets/report.md. Note that LLM scoring was skipped; advise re-running with LLM scoring enabled or self-assessing against the report dimensions.

Example Review Summary Structure

Structure the final summary with these sections in order:

  1. Structural validation — pass/fail with errors or warnings

  2. SKILL.md scores — overall and per-dimension table

  3. Reference scores — per-file table with overall and lowest dimension

  4. Novelty assessment — mean novelty vs threshold of 3; list novel_info per file for SME verification

  5. Action items — prioritized list of what to fix

  6. Recommendation — ready to publish / minor revisions / significant rework

Files

assets/report.md

Review Report Interpretation Framework

Use this framework to interpret LLM scoring results and present them to the SME.

Reading the scores

Each dimension is scored 1-5. The overall score is the mean of all dimensions.

Score scale
ScoreMeaning
5Excellent — genuinely outstanding on this dimension
4Good — minor improvements possible but solid
3Adequate — functional but has clear room for improvement
2Needs work — notable issues that should be addressed
1Poor — fundamental problems on this dimension

Dimension-specific guidance

When a dimension scores low, use this guidance to advise the SME on what to fix.

Clarity (SKILL.md and references)

Low clarity means the instructions are ambiguous or confusing. Common causes:

  • Vague language where precise instructions are needed

  • Missing prerequisite declarations (tools, runtimes, permissions)

  • Instructions that could be interpreted multiple ways

  • Poor formatting or disorganized structure

Advice: Rewrite ambiguous sections to have exactly one interpretation. Declare all dependencies and prerequisites explicitly. Use consistent formatting and logical section ordering.

Actionability (SKILL.md only)

Low actionability means an agent cannot follow the instructions step-by-step. Common causes:

  • Abstract advice instead of concrete steps

  • Missing intermediate steps that an agent would need

  • Assumptions about context the agent won't have

  • No examples of expected inputs/outputs

Advice: Convert abstract guidance into numbered steps. Add examples. Fill in any gaps where an agent would need to guess what to do next.

Token Efficiency (SKILL.md and references)

Low token efficiency means the content is bloated relative to its instructional value. Common causes:

  • Redundant explanations of the same concept

  • Boilerplate text that doesn't help the agent

  • Verbose phrasing where concise language would work

  • Content that could be compressed without losing meaning

Advice: Cut redundant sections. Replace verbose explanations with concise directives. Remove boilerplate. Every sentence should teach the agent something it needs to know.

Scope Discipline (SKILL.md only)

Low scope discipline means the skill sprawls beyond its stated purpose. Common causes:

  • Covering multiple languages or frameworks when the skill targets one

  • Including tangential content that could confuse the agent

  • Trying to do too many things in a single skill

Advice: Split broad skills into focused ones. Remove content that doesn't directly serve the skill's stated purpose. If the skill mentions other languages or frameworks, ensure those references are clearly delineated.

Directive Precision (SKILL.md only)

Low directive precision means the skill hedges when it should be direct. Common causes:

  • Using "consider", "may", "could", "possibly" for required actions

  • Missing conditional gates (when to proceed vs skip vs abort)

  • Ambiguity about what is required vs optional

Advice: Replace hedged language with precise directives (must, always, never, ensure). Add explicit conditions for branching paths. Make it clear what is required vs optional.

Novelty (SKILL.md and references)

Low novelty means the content mostly restates what the model already knows from training data. This is the most important quality signal for deciding whether a skill justifies its context window cost.

Score below 3 — warning sign: The skill may not contribute enough value. The SME should critically evaluate whether the skill teaches the agent something genuinely new. Common low-novelty patterns:

  • Restating official documentation that models have already ingested

  • Describing standard patterns or best practices that are common knowledge

  • Covering well-documented public APIs without adding proprietary context

  • Tutorials or guides on widely-known topics

Advice: Focus the skill on what is genuinely proprietary or non-obvious: internal API conventions, organization-specific workflows, undocumented gotchas, non-standard configurations, or domain knowledge not available in public docs. Cut or heavily compress sections that just restate public knowledge.

For deeper context on why novelty matters and the research behind it, refer the SME to: https://agentskillreport.com/

Instructional Value (references only)

Low instructional value means the reference is abstract rather than practically useful. Common causes:

  • Descriptions without working code examples

  • Theoretical explanations without concrete patterns

  • API docs without usage examples or signatures

Advice: Add concrete, copy-pasteable code examples. Include actual API signatures. Show patterns the agent can use directly, not just descriptions of concepts.

Skill Relevance (references only)

Low skill relevance means the reference includes content unrelated to the parent skill's purpose. Common causes:

  • Generic reference docs bundled without curation

  • Tangential content that doesn't support the skill's task

  • Reference files that cover a broader scope than the skill needs

Advice: Curate reference files tightly to the skill's purpose. Remove sections that an agent would never need for the skill's specific task. If a reference covers too broad a scope, extract only the relevant portions.

Structuring the review summary

Present results to the SME in this order:

  1. Structural validation: Did the skill pass? List any errors (blocking) or warnings (non-blocking).

  2. SKILL.md scores: Show the per-dimension breakdown with the overall score. Highlight any dimension at 2 or below.

  3. Reference file scores (if applicable): Show the per-file breakdown so the SME can see exactly which reference files need attention. Flag any file with an overall score below 3 or any individual dimension at 2 or below.

  4. Novelty assessment: Explicitly call out whether the mean novelty score meets the threshold of 3. If it doesn't, this is the most important finding in the review. List the novel_info details for each file — these tell the SME what the LLM identified as genuinely new. The SME should verify these claims are accurate, since the LLM may hallucinate or miss truly novel content.

  5. Prioritized action items: List specific things the SME should fix, ordered by impact. Structural errors first, then low-novelty concerns, then other low-scoring dimensions.

  6. Publish recommendation: One of:

    • Ready to publish — passes structural validation, no dimension below 3, novelty >= 3

    • Minor revisions needed — passes structural validation, 1-2 dimensions need attention, novelty is borderline

    • Significant rework needed — structural errors, multiple low dimensions, or novelty below 3 with no clear path to improvement

Requirements and compatibility

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Needs: Needs an MCP server, Needs network access

The author says: Requires skill-validator CLI and claude CLI for LLM scoring. LLM scoring can be skipped for structural-only review.

Security

What our scanner noticed· Medium risk

  • Instructions that use the network
  • Downloads piped into a shell

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Created by
mongodb
Publisher
MongoDB (Official)
Source
mongodb/agent-skills · tools/review-skill · commit 155bb9c
Licence
Apache License 2.0 (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by mongodb or MongoDB.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download review-skill.zip