CC universe-studio
Studio mode for a tagged workspace — the one-tag, four-approvals orchestrator (#474). Given an idea and an active workspace (`ralphy workspace use <ws>`), it runs production end-to-end as FOUR stages, each auto-assembled and auto-repaired against that workspace's own eval rubric before you see it: (1) location/cast → phase `style-lock`; (2) scenario → phase `scenario`; (3) scene anchors → phase `assets`; (4) final montage → phase `eval`. Each stage: assemble → `ralphy workspace eval <id>` → read the per-criterion scorecard → the #473 bounded repair loop (FREE editor fixes auto-loop; PAID regeneration STOPS for your approval) → present ONLY when the stage's criteria clear → wait for your stage approval before advancing. You make four decisions; everything else repairs itself against the universe's hard bar. GENERIC: parameterized by the ACTIVE workspace — works for ANY workspace with an `evaluators.json` + `stageGates`. It SEQUENCES the per-role playbooks (scenarist / art-director / editor) under the eval gates; it does NOT replace them. USE WHEN the user says "studio mode", "run my universe end-to-end", "make a <universe> video with the gates", "I'll make four approvals", "auto-assemble and auto-repair against my evals", "drive the staged studio for <workspace>", or tags a workspace and drops an idea expecting the staged-gate flow. See body for ALSO FIRE / DO NOT FIRE / HARD INVARIANTS.
Studio mode for a tagged workspace — the one-tag, four-approvals orchestrator (474).
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- Shorten the description to 1024 characters.
- 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
- error
description-longdescription is 1409 chars, limit 1024 - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "namespace"
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2296 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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 1409: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 56.