Audit AI skills for unnecessary client dependencies with Codex
Once the How I AI skills were available through the plugin, I worried that too many instructions assumed the reader was using Codex or Claude Code. I had Codex audit the published skill text, then asked for parallel reviewers to revise the unnecessary dependencies.
We needed to separate three things: which tool the guest used, which capabilities the task required, and which client the reader happened to be using. A source attribution should stay intact. A task that genuinely depends on a platform feature should keep that requirement. An instruction to open a particular coding client just to write a plan usually needs a different treatment.
The review covered 286 skills. We published revisions to 236 and left 50 unchanged. The revised instructions used the active client’s available tools and described useful handoffs when it could not perform a required step. Codex read the changes back from the CMS and checked representative downloads.
This was an editorial portability pass, not execution testing of all the workflows. It made the instructions less likely to send someone to a different app unnecessarily while keeping the actual tools and source episodes visible.
# Audit a skill for unnecessary client dependencies
Read the full skill and its source attribution. Classify each platform reference as source attribution, an example, a genuine task requirement, or an unnecessary assumption about the client executing the instructions.
Preserve attribution and genuine requirements. Rewrite accidental client assumptions in terms of the capability needed: source access, an independent review context, file editing, browser interaction, or execution. Avoid blanket name replacement.
Use the current client’s available tools where they satisfy the requirement. If a capability is missing, describe the useful work it can still complete and the concrete handoff required to finish. Never claim it executed a step it could only describe.
Preserve the intended outcome, examples, safeguards, and source links. Return a concise change rationale with the revised skill. Keep edits in draft for review. After an approved save, read the content back and check that any downloadable version matches. Report editorial review separately from execution testing.