gh-cskiro-claudex-meta-tools/skills/skill-creator/patterns/validation.md

Validation/Audit Skill Pattern

Use this pattern when your skill validates, audits, or checks artifacts against standards.

When to Use

• Skill checks compliance against defined standards
• Detects issues and provides remediation guidance
• Generates reports with severity levels
• Examples: claude-md-auditor, codebase-auditor

Structure

Validation Sources

Clearly define what you're validating against:

## Validation Sources

### 1. ✅ Official Standards
- **Source**: [Authority/documentation]
- **Authority**: Highest (requirements)
- **Examples**: [List key standards]

### 2. 💡 Best Practices
- **Source**: Community/field experience
- **Authority**: Medium (recommendations)
- **Examples**: [List practices]

### 3. 🔬 Research/Optimization
- **Source**: Academic research
- **Authority**: Medium (evidence-based)
- **Examples**: [List findings]

Finding Structure

Use consistent structure for all findings:

**Severity**: Critical | High | Medium | Low
**Category**: [Type of issue]
**Location**: [File:line or context]
**Description**: [What the issue is]
**Impact**: [Why it matters]
**Remediation**: [How to fix]
**Effort**: [Time estimate]
**Source**: Official | Community | Research

Severity Levels

Define clear severity criteria:

• Critical: Security risk, production-blocking (fix immediately)
• High: Significant quality issue (fix this sprint)
• Medium: Moderate improvement (schedule for next quarter)
• Low: Minor optimization (backlog)

Score Calculation

Provide quantitative scoring:

Overall Health Score (0-100):
- 90-100: Excellent
- 75-89: Good
- 60-74: Fair
- 40-59: Poor
- 0-39: Critical

Category Scores:
- Security: Should always be 100
- Compliance: Aim for 80+
- Best Practices: 70+ is good

Example: CLAUDE.md Auditor

Validation Against:

1. Official Anthropic documentation (docs.claude.com)
2. Community best practices (field experience)
3. Academic research (LLM context optimization)

Finding Categories:

• Security (secrets, sensitive data)
• Official Compliance (Anthropic guidelines)
• Best Practices (community recommendations)
• Structure (organization, formatting)

Output Modes:

1. Audit Report - Detailed findings
2. JSON Report - Machine-readable for CI/CD
3. Refactored File - Production-ready output

Validation Workflow

Step 1: Discovery

• Locate target artifact(s)
• Calculate metrics (size, complexity)
• Read content for analysis

Step 2: Analysis

Run validators in priority order:

1. Security Validation (CRITICAL)
2. Official Compliance
3. Best Practices
4. Optimization Opportunities

Step 3: Scoring

• Calculate overall health score
• Generate category-specific scores
• Count findings by severity

Step 4: Reporting

• Generate human-readable report
• Provide machine-readable output
• Offer remediation options

Best Practices

1. Prioritize Security: Always check security first
2. Source Attribution: Label each finding with its source
3. Actionable Remediation: Provide specific fix instructions
4. Multiple Output Formats: Support markdown, JSON, HTML
5. Incremental Improvement: Don't overwhelm with all issues
6. Track Over Time: Support baseline comparisons
7. CI/CD Integration: Provide exit codes and JSON output

Report Structure

# [Artifact] Audit Report

## Executive Summary
- Overall health score: [X/100]
- Critical findings: [count]
- High findings: [count]
- Top 3 priorities

## File Metrics
- [Relevant size/complexity metrics]

## Detailed Findings

### Critical Issues
[Grouped by category]

### High Priority Issues
[Grouped by category]

### Medium Priority Issues
[Grouped by category]

## Remediation Plan
- P0: IMMEDIATE (critical)
- P1: THIS SPRINT (high)
- P2: NEXT QUARTER (medium)
- P3: BACKLOG (low)

Success Criteria Template

A well-validated [artifact] should achieve:

- ✅ Security Score: 100/100
- ✅ Compliance Score: 80+/100
- ✅ Overall Health: 75+/100
- ✅ Zero CRITICAL findings
- ✅ < 3 HIGH findings
- ✅ [Artifact-specific criteria]