Skill Portfolio Audit
When to use
- The user wants to inventory existing Skills, identify duplicates or stale versions.
- The user wants to find workflows worth turning into Skills from high-frequency work.
- The user needs to distinguish private Skills, config-reusable Skills, and publicly shareable Skills.
- The user needs Skill portfolio merge, split, maintenance, and publish prioritization.
Workflow
Step 1: [Deterministic] Define scope
- Confirm the scan range: user-level Skills, project-level Skills, published copies, and scattered workflow scripts/docs within projects.
- Read-only audit; do not delete, publish, or move original Skills.
- Distinguish four asset types: installed generic Skills, self-built user-level Skills, project-level Skills, and un-encapsulated script/doc workflows.
Step 2: [Deterministic] Inventory existing Skills
- Enumerate all
SKILL.mdfiles. - Read frontmatter, Workflow, Hard Rules, Failure Handling, Output Format, and supporting files.
- Record: name, path, version, enabled status,
agent_created, dependencies, personal-data dependencies, company-data dependencies, maturity. - For same-name or same-function copies, compute hashes or compare versions to identify missing single-source-of-truth and version drift.
Step 3: [LLM] Map recurring work
Aggregate high-frequency work from three evidence layers:
- File output volume and date distribution (e.g. daily reports, analyses, layout HTML).
- Work logs and long-term memory for sustained tasks.
- Historical conversations for repeated requests and representative cases.
For each workflow, record: trigger, input, stable steps, variable steps, output, frequency evidence, existing Skill coverage, failure cost, sensitivity.
Step 4: [LLM] Decide the right form
Judge in this order:
- Only needs rules or format constraints, with clear input/output: a single Skill.
- Multi-step sequence with checkpoints: a Workflow Skill.
- Subtask count and path vary with materials: an Agent.
- Low-frequency, one-off, mainly depends on ad-hoc judgment: do not Skill-ify.
Avoid stuffing everything into one God Skill. Prefer establishing orchestration Skills that reuse existing search, writing, review, layout, and publishing Skills.
Step 5: [LLM] Score candidates
Score each 0-5:
| Dimension | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Frequency | Daily/weekly recurring gets high score |
| Stability | More stable steps and acceptance criteria = higher |
| Time saved | Saves time, reduces omissions or errors |
| Independence | Can form a clear input/output boundary |
| Transferability | Reusable across users and industries |
| Evidence accumulated | Has templates, scripts, failure cases, real outputs |
| Maintenance cost | Fragile data sources, frequently changing rules = deduction |
Total score guidance:
- 26-35: P0, design or maintain immediately.
- 20-25: P1, run a round of real-task validation first.
- 14-19: P2, keep as a module or reference doc.
- Below 13: do not Skill-ify for now.
Step 6: [LLM] Classify sharing value
| Type | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Public | No personal/company data; runs with config swap | Can share publicly |
| Configurable | Method is generic, but contains private paths, vendor lists, style rules, or connectors | Share after extracting config.example |
| Private | Core value depends on holdings, identity, internal materials, customer info, or account structure | Local use only |
| Do not publish | Contains tokens, database IDs, customer names, internal org info, or unpublished positions | Block publish, clean up first |
Sharing value also considers: whether the target audience is clear, whether existing supply is scarce, whether results are verifiable, and whether maintenance responsibility is sustainable.
Step 7: [LLM] Produce roadmap
Output must include:
- Current work landscape and high-frequency evidence.
- Existing Skill asset map.
- P0/P1/P2 candidate matrix.
- Merge, split, retain, stop-maintaining recommendations.
- Private/Configurable/Public sharing classification.
- 30/60/90-day roadmap.
- P0 risks: hardcoded credentials, personal data, company internal info, version drift.
- Persistent execution queue: build dependency-linked tasks for all confirmed actions, so completing one P0 does not lose the remaining items.
- After completing each item, update the execution ledger and claim the next unblocked task from the task list.
Hard Rules
- Do not infer maturity from filename alone; at least read representative
SKILL.mdfiles. - Do not equate "frequently done" with "should be Skill-ified"; must check step stability and acceptance criteria.
- Do not put personal style corpus, investment holdings, or company internal positions into a public Skill.
- When hardcoded credentials are found, mark P0; in the report, state the location and risk only — do not reproduce the credential value.
- Publishing and deletion are external or destructive actions, requiring separate confirmation; this audit only gives recommendations.
- Conclusions must give evidence: file counts, version hashes, representative cases, or historical conversations.
- At audit completion, all confirmed items must be written into a persistent task queue with dependencies; do not execute only the first item and forget the rest.
- Task status can only be marked complete after acceptance passes; after completing each item, check and claim the next unblocked task.
Failure Handling
| Scenario | Action |
|---|---|
| Too many Skills | Full enumeration first, then detail-audit self-built and high-frequency Skills; installed generic Skills summarized by category |
| Sub-agent or search fails | Retry and cross-validate with Glob/Read/local stats; do not stop on single failure |
| Insufficient conversation recall | Use project logs, output file counts, and representative files as supplementary evidence; note evidence boundaries |
| Same-name copies with different content | Flag version drift; recommend setting one authoritative source and one-way publish flow |
| Personal data mixed with generic method | Split into public engine + private config/data layer |
Output Format
# Skill Portfolio and High-Frequency Work Audit
## Conclusion
## Current Work Landscape
## Existing Skill Assets
## Candidate Scorecard Matrix
## Merge and Split Recommendations
## Sharing Value Classification
## 30/60/90-Day Roadmap
## P0 Risks and Immediate Actions
## Evidence and Boundaries
Pitfalls
- Giving a roadmap without building a task queue makes it easy to lose remaining items after completing the first P0. Audit delivery must include tasks, dependencies, status, and next-item claim rules.
- Setting all P0s to in-progress simultaneously widens the work surface. Default: only one main task in progress; others stay pending with dependency management.
Verification
- Covered user-level, project-level, and published copies.
- Each P0 candidate has frequency and real-output evidence.
- Distinguished Skill, Workflow Skill, Agent, and do-not-Skill-ify.
- Checked for credentials, personal data, company internal data, and external publish risk.
- Identified same-name copies and version drift.
- Recommendations can be acted on: retain, merge, split, private, or publish.
