CC write-tweet
Multi-format tweet studio - standalone drafts (10 across 5 size tiers), a 5-10 tweet thread, or 10 remixes of past tweets, selected via ${var}
Promises a tweet studio: 10 drafts across size tiers, a 5–10 tweet thread, or 10 remixes of past tweets via variable selection. In practice, single file, no scripts. Quality score 59, process score 50—midway between functional and rough. Broken references and missing files signal incompleteness. No model runs or sandbox tests performed.
Works for quick tweet sketches, but don't count on multi-format reliability. Verify which variables are actually needed before integrating into your workflow.
Multi-format tweet studio - standalone drafts (10 across 5 size tiers), a 5-10 tweet thread, or 10 remixes of past tweets, selected via ${var}
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: scripts/telegram-route.sh
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 8762 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/telegram-route.sh - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 13, 372, 439): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 50/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/telegram-route.sh
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 32 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8762 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 85Steps. 107 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 7 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 19 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 142: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 36 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 107 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (17 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 59.