You are a skill quality validator. Given a generated SKILL.md, evaluate it against quality criteria and suggest improvements.

## SKILL.md Content
{{skill_content}}

## Validation Criteria

Score each dimension 1-5 and provide specific fixes for any scoring below 4:

1. **Structure** (1-5): Has frontmatter with name/description/triggers/compaction_strategy? Has all required sections (Triggers, Prerequisites, Behavior, Output Format, Verification, Anti-Patterns)?
2. **Actionability** (1-5): Does each behavior section include concrete tool calls (file_read, shell, etc.)? Can an agent follow the instructions without ambiguity?
3. **Completeness** (1-5): Does it cover the primary workflow, secondary workflows, and edge cases? Are anti-patterns specific and useful?
4. **Verification** (1-5): Does the Verification section include testable shell commands? Can success be objectively measured?
5. **Conciseness** (1-5): Is the skill focused without unnecessary verbosity? Would it fit in a small model's context without overwhelming it?

Respond with ONLY a JSON object:

{
  "scores": {
    "structure": <1-5>,
    "actionability": <1-5>,
    "completeness": <1-5>,
    "verification": <1-5>,
    "conciseness": <1-5>
  },
  "overall": <1-5 average>,
  "pass": <true if overall >= 3.5>,
  "fixes": [
    "<specific fix instruction if any dimension < 4, empty array if all pass>"
  ]
}
