SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC audit-agent-lifecycle

Audit agent lifecycle — validates agent execution capability against configuration. Accepts plugin path, runs 8 semantic audits (capability vs config alignment, skill loading correctness, inter-agent contracts, prompt contradictions, tool sufficiency, dead agents, scriptable patterns, pattern learning), writes reports to .plugin-creator/audits/. Use when auditing agent lifecycle, checking agent capabilities, verifying tool access, finding dead agents, validating agent contract alignment, or confirming agents can execute workflows.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills Claude Code author: Jamie-BitFlight MIT 2 files body ≈ 4 210 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 8 d ago

Audit agent lifecycle — validates agent execution capability against configuration.

As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerAI 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
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
56/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
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: 2. 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    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 202): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4210 tokens
    • 100Steps. 75 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 536: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 27 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 75 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.