AC constraint-driven-development
Establishes a project's quality bar as a written contract and stops agents quietly lowering it. Interviews the user on which dimensions matter, supplies sane default thresholds when they have no number in mind, records everything in CONSTRAINTS.md, and watches the diff for a weakened bar — new @ts-ignore or eslint-disable suppressions, skipped or deleted tests, assertions stripped out, unimplemented stubs, thresholds edited down. Use when no quality bar is written down, when the user says "set up constraints" or "define our standards", when the user wants dimensions they care about — accessibility, web performance, coverage — set up as enforced constraints, when an agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests to get to green, when you need a coverage or performance threshold and don't know what number to pick, or when an agent writes more code than anyone will read.
Establishes a project's quality bar as a written contract and stops agents quietly lowering it.
As a process C 52/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5005 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 133): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 52/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5005 tokens
- 100Steps. 53 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The skill ranks results itself: that belongs to the system behind the tool, not the model
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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 880: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 2 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 53 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: 75.