data-contract-framework

Looking at how you've structured the data contract validation—treating schemas as first-class citizens rather than afterthoughts—there's real architectural thinking here, though the execution could be tighter in a few areas.

Links:

• GitHub
• SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 67/100, solidly in D territory. Based on Anthropic's skills best practices, your writing style is sharp (8/10), but Progressive Disclosure Architecture (18/30) and Ease of Use (17/25) are dragging things down. The core framework is solid—you just need to make it more discoverable and actionable for Claude to actually use it.

What's Working Well

• Writing style is clean. No fluff, professional tone throughout. You're not overselling—you're explaining.
• Consistent terminology. "Contract," "SLA," "owner," "audit" are used reliably, so Claude would understand the conceptual model.
• Real problem you're solving. Data contracts as a coordination tool between data producers and consumers is legitimately useful; not a toy problem.
• Structure is grep-friendly. Simple file layout, clear section headers—easy to parse.

The Big One: Missing Trigger Phrases in Description

This is your biggest blocker for discoverability. Your description reads like:

Operating model for defining, enforcing, and auditing BI data contracts.

Claude doesn't know to invoke this skill when someone asks "help me define a data contract" or "run data contract validation." Without trigger phrases, this skill is invisible.

The fix: Rewrite to include explicit triggers:

Define, enforce, and audit BI data contracts with SLAs and ownership. Use when asked to "create a data contract", "define table SLAs", "enforce data contracts", "audit data contracts", or "coor...