SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC eval-skills

Audit a project or library of skills for metadata, trigger boundaries, workflow completion criteria, local resource closure, instruction economy, tool scope, effort, and routing evidence. Use before shipping skills, after importing a skill collection, or when a skill triggers too often or not at all.

FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-ultimate-guide Claude Code author: FlorianBruniaux CC-BY-SA-4.0 1 file body ≈ 4 889 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Audit a project or library of skills for metadata, trigger boundaries, workflow completion criteria, local resource closure, instruction economy, tool scope…

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentstype 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
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
83
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "effort"
    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 27): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

    • 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
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 15 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4889 tokens
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 32 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • low The response is described with custom markup (11 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
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 301: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 25 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 32 items
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.