SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB create-stories

Breaks one epic into implementable stories with acceptance criteria. Use when the user wants stories for an epic or the next batch of work to build. Not for turning the whole design into epics.

Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios Claude Code author: Donchitos MIT 3 files body ≈ 3 921 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 32 h ago

Breaks one epic into implementable stories with acceptance criteria.

As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

GeneratorSoftware developmentAI and agentsWriting and documentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
66/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Broad scope meta-dynamic-shell SKILL.md:10
      Shell command executed automatically when the skill loads (Claude Code !`cmd` preamble)
      !`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,review_gate,automation,workflow,docs.density,story_granularity,qa.level,system_overrides`

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 175): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 66/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 16 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 38 steps
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3921 tokens
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low The response is described with custom markup (5 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 193: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 38 items
    • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.