grading-claude-agents-md

I took a look at your grading-claude-agents-md skill and wanted to share some thoughts.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 88/100, which lands you squarely in B territory – this is solid work. You've nailed the practical side of things (Ease of Use: 23/25), and your reference architecture is genuinely well-structured. The grading model follows Anthropic's best practices, and the feedback loop concept (Grade → Plan → Implement → Re-grade) is exactly what teams need.

What's Working Well

• Trigger phrases are money: "grade my CLAUDE.md", "improve my agent config", "audit my config files" – these are discoverable and specific. Developers will actually find this.
• Your reference structure is chef's kiss: Separating the 6-category rubric, improvement patterns, and size guide into individual files keeps SKILL.md lean at 137 lines. That's the right call for token efficiency.
• The rubric itself is thorough: Breaking down each pillar (Progressive Disclosure, Ease of Use, Spec Compliance, etc.) with actual scoring criteria gives people something to work with beyond "your skill is bad."

The Big One: Name Convention Issue

Here's what's holding back your score: you're using a reserved word in the skill name. The report flagged "grading-claude-agents-md" – the problem is "grading" is a reserved/restricted term in the skill naming convention.

Why it matters: This violates spec compliance standards and could affect how the skill is indexed or invoked across different platforms.

The fix: Rename to something like claude-agents-md-evaluator or agent-config-auditor. It's a one-line change in SKILL.md's frontmatter, but it'll bump...