SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BB dev-story

Implements one story in code with tests, following its ADRs. Use when the user says to build, implement or start working on a story. Not for checking readiness beforehand or closing the story after.

Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios Claude Code author: Donchitos MIT 4 files body ≈ 4 227 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 31 h ago

Implements one story in code with tests, following its ADRs.

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

GeneratorSoftware developmentWriting 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
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
66/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Running it twice w 4
30
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:11
      Shell command executed automatically when the skill loads (Claude Code !`cmd` preamble)
      !`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,qa.level,gate_level,engine_values,specialists,perf_budgets,system_overrides`

    Files scanned: 4. 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    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 63, 70): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions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
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4227 tokens
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 24 steps
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • 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 (13 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
    • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +3Description length 198: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.