Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add gotalab/skillport --skill skill-evaluatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gotalab/skillportWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gotalab/skillport/skill-evaluator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gotalab/skillport/skill-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/skillport/skill-evaluator/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gotalab/skillport/skill-evaluator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/skillport/skill-evaluator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00061 | $0.01594 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00638 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
skill-evaluator scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 195 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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%)
What ships with it
6 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 195 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 4aa0fb87d522
skill-evaluator is a skill published in the GitHub repository gotalab/skillport (418 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,594 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
mcp-server-review
Review a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation against the 2026-07-28 protocol revision, which removed the initialize handshake and Mcp-Session-Id and made the protocol stateless. Use when the user asks to review, audit, upgrade or migrate an MCP server, asks whether their MCP server is spec compliant…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
adversarial-squad
Deploy a bounded, profile-loaded adversarial review squad at an SDD point-cut (post-spec, post-plan, post-tasks, pre-merge, or an ad-hoc decision) so independent doctrine lenses converge on findings one reviewer would miss. Triggers: "deploy a squad", "adversarial squad", "post-tasks anti-laziness pass", "pre-spec…