Skip to main content
Glama

check_skill_compliance

Verifies source files against checkable rules from design skill documents, ensuring compliance with composition, state, data-fetching, naming, and motion guidelines. Returns findings and summary.

Instructions

Check real source files for the objectively-checkable rules in skills/ATOMIC_DESIGN.md (composition, state, data-fetching, naming) and skills/MOTION_VIDEO_DESIGN.md (motion tokens, reduced-motion, GPU-safe properties) — a post-hoc, deterministic verification pass, the same mechanism a linter uses to enforce a style guide.

This does not read the skill docs at check time or make an agent obey markdown — the checkable rules are hand-extracted into regex/string checks. It closes the gap where nothing downstream ever notices whether an agent actually followed those docs. skills/DESIGN_SYSTEM_REFERENCE.md is a pure external-system catalog with zero checkable rules and contributes nothing here.

Prereq: none — no Figma, no AI, works entirely offline. Returns: { version, target, generatedAt, findings: [{ severity, rule, file, message, fix?, docRef }], summary: { critical, warning, filesChecked } }. Real enforcement requires wiring memi audit --skill-compliance into CI or a pre-commit hook — this MCP tool remains something an agent can choose not to call, same as any other tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoLocal path to scan. Defaults to the current project root.
maxFilesNoMaximum source files to scan.
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fully describes behavior: deterministic, offline, regex/string checks, return format with findings and summary. No side effects or destructive actions implied, and limitations are clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured into clear sections: purpose, exclusions, prerequisites, return format, and usage note. Slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main verb 'Check'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains return format, mechanism, limitations, and integration context. No gaps remain for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. Description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., 'target' defaults to current root is in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that it checks real source files for objectively-checkable rules from specific design docs (ATOMIC_DESIGN.md, MOTION_VIDEO_DESIGN.md) using a linter-like mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_audit' by specifying its deterministic, post-hoc nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (post-hoc verification), prerequisites (none, offline), and alternatives (CI integration with 'memi audit --skill-compliance'). Also clarifies what it does not do (doesn't read skill docs at check time, doesn't enforce obedience).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sarveshsea/memi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server