BB kicad
Analyze KiCad projects and PDF schematics: schematics, PCB layouts, Gerbers, footprints, symbols, netlists, and design rules. Reviews designs for bugs, traces nets, cross-references schematic to PCB, extracts BOM data, checks DRC/ERC, DFM, power trees, and regulator circuits. Every finding carries a confidence label and evidence source with trust_summary rollup. Analyzes PDF schematics from dev boards, reference designs, eval kits, and datasheets. Supports KiCad 5–10. Use whenever the user mentions .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb, .kicad_pro, PCB design review, schematic analysis, PDF schematics, reference designs, Gerber files, DRC/ERC, netlist issues, BOM extraction, signal tracing, power budget, DFM, or wants to understand, debug, compare, or review any hardware design. Also for "check my board", "review before fab", "what's wrong with my schematic", "is this ready to order", "check my power supply", "verify this circuit", OSHWA certification readiness, or any electronics/PCB design question.
Analyze KiCad projects and PDF schematics: schematics, PCB layouts, Gerbers, footprints, symbols, netlists, and design rules.
As a process B 73/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: execution cost
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/kicad_utils.py:465High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"033u…tor,_10%" -> 0.10
quoted
Files scanned: 79. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 19498 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 143, 145, 147, 182, 607, 629): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 73/100
- 10Execution cost. Instruction body is 19498 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Steps. 144 steps, 6 vague phrases
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (13 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 1001: 120–800 characters recommended
- -324 of 34 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 40 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 144 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (20 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (20 of 20)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.