SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC add-new-feature

SAM-style feature initiation workflow — discovery through codebase analysis, architecture spec, task decomposition, validation, and context manifest. Use when a user asks to add a feature, plan a feature, or convert an idea into an executable SAM plan.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills Claude Code author: Jamie-BitFlight MIT 1 file body ≈ 7 157 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 8 d ago

SAM-style feature initiation workflow — discovery through codebase analysis, architecture spec, task decomposition, validation, and context manifest.

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../../docs/plan-artifact-lifecycle.md

ProcedureGitHubSoftware developmenttype 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
C
87/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
68
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../../docs/plan-artifact-lifecycle.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
  2. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
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

  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 7157 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../../docs/plan-artifact-lifecycle.md
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 65, 572): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../../docs/plan-artifact-lifecycle.md
  • 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../docs/plan-artifact-lifecycle.md
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7157 tokens
  • 100Steps. 28 steps
  • 100Failures and branches. 5 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
  • low The response is described with custom markup (7 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 252: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 20 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
  • +4Has examples (18 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 68.