quality-review-checklist

Found an interesting approach to code review standardization here—I'm curious why you opted for a checklist-based pattern instead of leveraging automated linting or static analysis as a foundation?

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 68/100, D grade territory—solid writing style keeps you from tanking, but utility and discoverability are dragging you down. Your strongest area is Writing Style (9/10), but Utility (11/20) is where you're losing the most points. The framework is there, but it needs teeth.

What's Working Well

• Writing clarity is tight. Your 32 lines pack value—no fluff, imperative voice throughout, zero marketing speak. That's why you scored 9/10 on style.
• 5-category framework is sensible. Accuracy, Style, Accessibility, Localization, and Compliance cover the right surface area for documentation QA.
• Metadata is valid. Your YAML frontmatter is clean and follows conventions (correct hyphen-case naming, required fields present).

The Big One: Missing Trigger Phrases

This is what's hurting discoverability. Your description reads like a Wikipedia entry:

"Checklist covering accuracy, style, accessibility, and localization requirements..."

But agents need to know when to invoke you. Add specific activation triggers:

description: "Pre-publication QA checklist for documentation. Use when asked to 'review documentation quality', 'QA docs', 'check doc accuracy', 'pre-publication review', or 'audit content'. Covers accuracy, style, accessibility, and localization."

This alone bumps you +2-3 points on discoverability and makes the skill actually findable.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Templates mentioned but not delivered. You refer...