utility-pm-skill-validate

$npx mdskill add product-on-purpose/pm-skills/utility-pm-skill-validate

Audits pm-skills skills against structural and quality criteria.

  • Checks if a skill meets repo standards before shipping or after changes.
  • Depends on the skill's SKILL.md and associated files for validation.
  • Uses deterministic structural checks and LLM-assessed coherence checks.
  • Outputs a structured validation report with pass/fail and recommendations.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/utility-pm-skill-validateView on GitHub ↗
---
name: utility-pm-skill-validate
description: Audits an existing pm-skills skill against structural conventions and quality criteria. Produces a structured validation report with pass/fail checks, severity-graded findings, and actionable recommendations. Use when checking whether a skill meets repo standards before shipping or after making changes.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  classification: utility
  version: "1.1.1"
  updated: 2026-07-04
  category: coordination
  frameworks: [triple-diamond]
  author: product-on-purpose
---
# PM Skill Validate

This skill audits an existing pm-skills skill against the repo's structural
conventions and quality criteria. It produces a validation report that a
human can scan and that `utility-pm-skill-iterate` can consume as input.

The validator checks two tiers:
- **Tier 1 (Structural)** - deterministic checks that mirror CI: frontmatter,
  naming, file presence, description word count.
- **Tier 2 (Quality)** - LLM-assessed coherence checks: does the output
  contract reference the template? Is the example complete? Are checklist
  items testable?

## When to Use

- After creating a skill with `utility-pm-skill-builder`, before shipping
- After manually editing a skill, to confirm it still passes conventions
- Before running `utility-pm-skill-iterate`, to identify what needs improvement
- When a convention changes, to audit which skills need updating (batch mode)
- When reviewing a contributed skill for quality and completeness

## When NOT to Use

- To create a new skill from scratch -> use `utility-pm-skill-builder`
- To fix or improve a skill -> use `utility-pm-skill-iterate` (feed it this report)
- To run CI checks in a pipeline -> use `scripts/lint-skills-frontmatter.sh`
  (this skill is for interactive, deeper-than-CI validation)

## Instructions

When asked to validate a skill, follow these steps:

### Step 1: Identify the Target

Accept the skill name in any form:
- Directory name: `deliver-prd`
- Full path: `skills/deliver-prd/SKILL.md`
- Slash command: `deliver-prd`

Resolve to the canonical directory path: `skills/{name}/`.

If the skill directory does not exist, report immediately:

```
# Validation Report: {input}
Result: FAIL
Skill directory `skills/{input}/` does not exist.
```

**Batch mode:** If the input is `--all`, run Tier 1 structural checks
across all skills and produce a summary table (see Step 5). Do not run
Tier 2 in batch mode.

### Step 2: Read Skill Files

Read all files in the skill directory:

| File | Required | Purpose |
|------|----------|---------|
| `SKILL.md` | yes | Frontmatter + instructions |
| `references/TEMPLATE.md` | yes | Output template |
| `references/EXAMPLE.md` | yes | Worked example |
| `HISTORY.md` | no | Version history (if present) |
| `evals/trigger-fixtures.json` | no | Routing-eval fixtures (B-4); present for roster skills |
| `evals/output-scenarios/*.md` | no | Output-quality scenarios (B-7); present for evaled skills |

Also read:
- The corresponding command file: `commands/{command-name}.md`
- The AGENTS.md entry for this skill

If reading files is not possible (MCP/embedded environment), ask the user
to paste the content of each file before proceeding (see Degraded Mode).

### Step 3: Run Tier 1 - Structural Checks

Run these deterministic checks. Each produces a `PASS` or `FAIL` line.

| Check ID | What to check | Pass condition |
|----------|--------------|----------------|
| `frontmatter-at-byte-zero` | First line of SKILL.md, references/TEMPLATE.md, references/EXAMPLE.md is exactly `---` | Line 1 is the opening `---` fence with no preceding HTML comment, BOM, or whitespace. Severity: FAIL. Reference: `library/skill-output-samples/SAMPLE_CREATION.md` Section 5. |
| `name-match` | Frontmatter `name` matches directory name | Exact string match |
| `description-present` | Frontmatter `description` exists | Non-empty value |
| `description-length` | Description word count | 20-100 words |
| `version-present` | Frontmatter `version` exists | Non-empty, valid SemVer |
| `updated-present` | Frontmatter `updated` exists | Non-empty, ISO date |
| `license-present` | Frontmatter `license` exists | Non-empty value |
| `phase-classification` | Phase/classification consistency | Domain has `phase:`, foundation/utility has `classification:`, not both |
| `template-exists` | `references/TEMPLATE.md` exists | File present |
| `template-sections` | TEMPLATE.md has sufficient structure | ≥3 `##` level-2 headers |
| `example-exists` | `references/EXAMPLE.md` exists | File present |
| `command-exists` | Command file exists in `commands/` | File present and references correct skill path |
| `agents-entry` | AGENTS.md has an entry for this skill | Entry exists with matching `**Path:**` |
| `eval-trigger-fixtures` | Routing fixtures present + well-formed (B-4) | If `evals/trigger-fixtures.json` exists: `schema:1`, `skill` matches dir, >=16 queries, >=8 per class (trigger / no-trigger), >=2 near-misses. If absent: INFO (not in the trigger-eval roster, or fixtures not yet authored). Authoritative gate: `scripts/check-trigger-fixtures.mjs`. |
| `eval-output-scenarios` | Output scenarios present + well-formed (B-7) | If `evals/output-scenarios/*.md` exist: each has `scenario`/`skill`/`family` frontmatter, `skill` matches dir, `family` maps to an existing `docs/internal/eval-rubrics/{family}.md`, body >=100 chars. If absent: INFO (not yet output-evaled). Authoritative gate: `scripts/check-output-eval-assets.mjs`. |
| `reciprocal-boundary-pointers` | Declared collision pairs cross-point (C-5) | If the skill appears in `COLLISION_PAIRS` (`scripts/check-trigger-fixtures.mjs`): its `When NOT to Use` names each partner AND each partner's `When NOT to Use` names it back. FAIL if a declared pair is one-directional. If not in any pair: PASS. Authoritative gate: `scripts/check-reciprocal-boundary-pointers.mjs`. |

### Step 4: Run Tier 2 - Quality Checks

Run these LLM-assessed checks. Each produces a `PASS`, `WARN`, or `INFO`
line. Tier 2 findings are capped at `WARN` unless objectively grounded
(placeholder leakage is the exception - it can `FAIL`).

| Check ID | What to assess | How to assess | Max severity |
|----------|---------------|---------------|-------------|
| `output-contract-coverage` | SKILL.md references the template | Check for explicit reference to `references/TEMPLATE.md` or "use the template" in an Output section. Accept either pattern as valid. WARN only if template is not referenced at all. | WARN |
| `checklist-verifiability` | Quality checklist items are testable | Read each checklist item. Flag items that are vague ("is good quality") vs. specific ("metrics are measurable"). WARN if ≥2 items are vague. | WARN |
| `example-completeness` | EXAMPLE.md fills all template sections | Compare `##` headers in TEMPLATE.md against `##` headers in EXAMPLE.md. WARN if EXAMPLE.md is missing sections that appear in the template. Also check for unresolved placeholders. Line count is informational only - report it but do not gate on it. | WARN |
| `template-example-alignment` | EXAMPLE.md follows TEMPLATE.md structure | Compare section header ordering. WARN if EXAMPLE.md has sections in a different order or uses different header names than TEMPLATE.md. | WARN |
| `description-actionability` | Description tells *when* to use the skill | Check for a trigger phrase like "Use when..." or "Use for..." in the frontmatter description. WARN if the description only says *what* the skill does without indicating *when* to use it. | WARN |
| `instruction-clarity` | Instructions are numbered and imperative | Check for `### Step` headings or a numbered list pattern in the Instructions section. WARN if instructions are prose paragraphs without clear step structure. | WARN |
| `placeholder-leakage` | No leftover scaffolding in any shipped file | Scan SKILL.md, TEMPLATE.md, and EXAMPLE.md for: `[Placeholder]` or `[Feature Name]` patterns, `<!-- ... -->` HTML comments (except the license header), template guidance blockquotes that should have been removed, and authoring notes like "TODO" or "FIXME". FAIL if any are found - this is objectively grounded. | FAIL |
| `when-not-to-use` | "When NOT to Use" section present and names neighbors | Check for a `When NOT to Use` section that names the skill's nearest neighbors (when to use them instead). WARN if the section is absent, or present but generic (no neighbor named). This became a convention in the v2.26.0 rewrites and underpins the reciprocity gate; `reciprocal-boundary-pointers` (Tier 1) is the deterministic backstop for declared collision pairs. | WARN |

**Quality standard framing:** These checks validate against current library
conventions - what the shipped library actually does today. Findings graded
WARN or INFO represent the v2.8 quality standard that newer skills (built
with `utility-pm-skill-builder`) meet. Older skills may legitimately receive these
findings until iterated through the lifecycle.

**Heading and dialect conventions:** for the authoritative section skeleton per
dialect (classic, contract-shaped, tool-family) and the exact canon heading
spellings, see [Skeleton Canon: The Three Sanctioned
Dialects](../../site/src/content/docs/guides/creating-pm-skills.md#skeleton-canon-the-three-sanctioned-dialects)
in the skill-authoring guide. A skill whose headings or section set drift from
its dialect's canon should be flagged in Recommendations even where no Tier 1
check above already covers it; `scripts/check-heading-canon.mjs` is the eventual
deterministic backstop, shipping advisory until the full catalog is normalized.

### Step 5: Produce the Validation Report

Assemble the report using this exact structure. F-11 (`utility-pm-skill-iterate`)
parses this report by section headings and pipe-delimited fields.

```
# Validation Report: {skill-name}
Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
Skill version: {version from frontmatter}
Validator version: 1.0.0
Report schema: v1
Result: {PASS | WARN | FAIL}

## Summary
{1-2 sentence overall assessment.}
Errors: {n} | Warnings: {n} | Info: {n}

> Tier 2 findings are heuristic quality assessments and may require human review.

## Structural Checks
- {STATUS} | structural | {check-id} | {message}
- {STATUS} | structural | {check-id} | {message}
...

## Quality Checks
- {STATUS} | quality | {check-id} | {message}
- {STATUS} | quality | {check-id} | {message}
...

## Recommendations
1. {STATUS} | {check-id} | Target: {file-path}
   Action: {what to do}
2. {STATUS} | {check-id} | Target: {file-path}
   Action: {what to do}
...
```

**Report rules:**

- **Result** = worst severity found: any FAIL → `FAIL`, else any WARN → `WARN`, else `PASS`.
- **Structural Checks**: one line per Tier 1 check. STATUS is `PASS` or `FAIL`.
- **Quality Checks**: one line per Tier 2 check. STATUS is `PASS`, `WARN`, or `INFO`.
- **Recommendations**: only include checks that did NOT pass. Each recommendation
  includes the check ID, the target file path, and a specific action.
- If all checks pass, the Recommendations section should say: "No issues found."
- Omit passing checks from Recommendations - only list findings that need action.

**Batch mode output** (when input is `--all`):

Run Tier 1 structural checks only across all skills. Produce a summary table:

```
# Batch Validation Summary
Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
Validator version: 1.0.0
Report schema: v1
Skills checked: {n}

| Skill | Result | Errors | Warnings |
|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| deliver-prd | PASS | 0 | 0 |
| define-hypothesis | WARN | 0 | 1 |
| foundation-persona | FAIL | 1 | 0 |
...

Skills passing: {n}/{total}
Run `utility-pm-skill-validate {skill}` for a detailed report.
```

## Degraded Mode

If you cannot read skill files directly (e.g., running via MCP or in an
embedded environment without file system access):

1. Ask the user to provide the content of each required file:
   - `skills/{name}/SKILL.md`
   - `skills/{name}/references/TEMPLATE.md`
   - `skills/{name}/references/EXAMPLE.md`
2. Run all checks against the provided content.
3. Note in the report: "Validated from user-provided content (file system not available)."
4. Batch mode is not available in degraded mode - single skill only.

## Output Contract

The validator MUST produce a validation report following the format in Step 5.

The report:
- Uses the exact section headings: `## Summary`, `## Structural Checks`,
  `## Quality Checks`, `## Recommendations`
- Uses pipe-delimited check lines: `STATUS | TIER | CHECK-ID | message`
- Uses pipe-delimited recommendations: `STATUS | CHECK-ID | Target: path`
  followed by `Action: description` on the next line
- Includes `Report schema: v1` in the header for F-11 compatibility
- Includes the Tier 2 caveat line in the Summary section

## Quality Checklist

Before delivering the report, verify:

- [ ] All Tier 1 structural checks were run (not skipped), including the eval-asset checks (`eval-trigger-fixtures`, `eval-output-scenarios`, `reciprocal-boundary-pointers`); absent eval assets are INFO, not FAIL, except a one-directional declared collision pair which FAILs
- [ ] All Tier 2 quality checks were run (not skipped) - single skill mode only
- [ ] Report follows the exact section and line format from Step 5
- [ ] Every non-passing check appears in Recommendations with a target file path
- [ ] Result field reflects the worst severity found
- [ ] Tier 2 findings are capped at WARN (except placeholder-leakage which can FAIL)
- [ ] No Tier 2 check was marked FAIL unless objectively grounded

## Examples

See `references/EXAMPLE.md` for a completed validation report demonstrating
both Tier 1 and Tier 2 checks against a real shipped skill.

More from product-on-purpose/pm-skills

SkillDescription
define-hypothesisDefines a testable hypothesis with clear success metrics and a validation approach. Use when forming assumptions to test or aligning a team on what success looks like, before any experiment is designed. To design the A/B test or experiment that will validate the hypothesis, use measure-experiment-design.
define-jtbd-canvasCreates a Jobs to be Done canvas capturing the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of a customer job. Use when deeply understanding customer motivations, designing for jobs, or reframing product positioning.
define-opportunity-treeCreates an opportunity solution tree connecting a desired outcome to customer opportunities and candidate solutions, preventing solution-first jumps in continuous discovery. Use when structuring scattered feature ideas or communicating how the roadmap traces to outcomes. For ranking an existing flat list of candidates, use define-prioritization-framework instead; this skill discovers the list, it does not score one.
define-prioritization-frameworkRun applicable prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, Kano) against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge across frameworks, and an executive summary with recommendation. Framework applicability is filtered by data availability; Kano requires customer research. Refuses to fabricate scores; produces an estimation scaffold when input data is missing.
define-problem-statementCreates a clear problem framing document with user impact, business context, and success criteria. Use when starting a new initiative, realigning a drifted project, or communicating up to leadership.
define-xFixture skill for phase-map and phase-router tests.
deliver-acceptance-criteriaGenerates structured Given/When/Then acceptance criteria for a user story or feature slice, covering the happy path, key failure scenarios, and non-functional expectations in testable form. Use when turning requirements into verifiable scenarios for engineering handoff and QA sign-off. For a dedicated catalog of boundary conditions, error states, and recovery paths across a feature, use deliver-edge-cases; to write the stories themselves, use deliver-user-stories.
deliver-edge-casesDocuments edge cases, error states, boundary conditions, race conditions, and recovery paths for a feature - the systematic catalog of what can go wrong and the failure modes to design for. Use during specification to map the failure surface and ensure comprehensive coverage, or during QA planning to identify boundary and limit scenarios to test. Distinct from deliver-acceptance-criteria, which writes story-level Given/When/Then checks; this skill produces the whole-feature edge-case catalog.
deliver-launch-checklistCreates a cross-functional pre-launch checklist covering engineering, design, marketing, support, legal, and operations readiness, with owners, dates, and go/no-go criteria so nothing is missed before release. Use for significant or cross-team launches, not a small single-team change. For the customer-facing announcement of what shipped, use deliver-release-notes instead.
deliver-prdCreates a comprehensive Product Requirements Document that aligns stakeholders on what to build, why, and how success will be measured. Use when specifying features, epics, or product initiatives for engineering handoff.