skill-portfolio-existence-review

skill-portfolio-existence-review

An existence/strategy audit for a portfolio of published Claude Code skills, plugin bundles, or adjacent repos — answering the one question the other portfolio skills never ask: should each of these exist at all?

It renders a per-artifact KEEP / CONSOLIDATE / KILL / PIVOT verdict — each with a concrete Recommended Fix — backed by an existence-pinned adversarial panel, web-verified differentiation against competitor/external tools ("is this a skin on a solved problem?"), and redundancy / maintenance-cost / coherence analysis.

🙏 Built on agent-review-panel. This skill is a specialization of that engine for the existence axis — see Built on agent-review-panel below.

The question it answers (and the ones it doesn't)

Most "audit my skills" tooling grades quality, placement, or usage. None asks whether a thing should exist. A flawlessly-built skill that duplicates a free incumbent still shouldn't exist — and this is the skill that will say so.

If the question is…	Use	Not this skill because…
Should this exist at all? Is it redundant / a reskin / worth my time?	skill-portfolio-existence-review	—
Is each skill well-built? (READMEs, badges, factual errors) — and fix them	skill-portfolio-audit	that's quality, not existence
Which repo should a skill live in?	skill-portfolio-repo-placement-scan	that's placement, not existence
Which skills are unused / dormant?	ecosystem-audit	that's usage, not existence
How structurally good is one skill?	schliff	single-skill quality, not portfolio strategy
Build or publish a new skill	skill-creator	creation, not audit

Quick Start

You: i've got 8 skills published on github and i'm not sure half of them should still exist.
     help me figure out which to kill or merge.

Claude: [enumerates the repos, reconciles published vs local state, web-verifies the
         competitor tools each one overlaps, runs a 5-reviewer existence panel +
         fact-check + judge]

        ## Portfolio Existence Review — should these exist at all?
        Existence-coherence: 6.5/10

        | Artifact   | Verdict     | One line                                            |
        |------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
        | tool-a     | PIVOT       | cost-dashboard half is table-stakes vs <incumbent>… |
        | tool-b     | CONSOLIDATE | byte-identical in two marketplaces; retire one      |
        | bundle-c   | PIVOT       | name no longer matches contents; split the track    |
        | daily-d    | KEEP        | settled by daily use; only the coupling is live     |

You: is my new token-cost dashboard just a reskin of ccusage, or actually different?
You: should i keep building this skill or is it pointless because <tool> already does it?
You: are memory-hygiene and ecosystem-audit redundant? should one absorb the other?

All trigger the same existence review — even without the word "existence".

Installation

Claude Code (plugin install — recommended):

claude plugin marketplace add wan-huiyan/skill-portfolio-existence-review
claude plugin install skill-portfolio-existence-review@wan-huiyan-skill-portfolio-existence-review

Claude Code (git clone):

git clone https://github.com/wan-huiyan/skill-portfolio-existence-review.git ~/.claude/skills/skill-portfolio-existence-review

What you get

The verdict vocabulary — decisive, not hedged:

Verdict	Meaning
KEEP	Earns its existence as-is.
CONSOLIDATE	Merge into / absorb another artifact, or collapse a duplicate publication surface (e.g. retire a second marketplace, keep the repo).
KILL	Should not exist; a better tool or a one-liner makes it unnecessary.
PIVOT	Has a reason to exist but is aimed wrong; reframe / refocus / rename / re-scope.