AC git-workflow-and-versioning
Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, splitting uncommitted work in a messy working tree into clean atomic commits, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams. Use when cutting a release, choosing a semantic version bump, tagging, or writing a changelog.
Structures git workflow practices.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- 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
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 295, 303): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 43 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 39 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3346 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- high The skill tells the model to perform an irreversible action with no human approval
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 424: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 26 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 39 items
- +4Has examples (18 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.