SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CF ca-preview

Zero-onboarding, read-only dry-run of the reviewer fleet against the current uncommitted diff. Predicts reviewers, runs the state-free secret scan, writes nothing.

arbiterForge/codeArbiter Claude Code author: arbiterForge AGPL-3.0 1 file body ≈ 1 097 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 25 h ago

Zero-onboarding, read-only dry-run of the reviewer fleet against the current uncommitted diff.

As a process F 41/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../../hooks/_previewlib.py, ../../includes/review-matrix.md

AnalyzerData and analyticsSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
C
85/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
63
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
41/100
Will not run
References files that are not bundled: ../../hooks/_previewlib.py, ../../includes/review-matrix.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: ca-preview (arbiterForge/codeArbiter)

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
  2. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
For the model run — optional
  • 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-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../../hooks/_previewlib.py
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../../includes/review-matrix.md

Process rating: all ten parameters 41/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../../hooks/_previewlib.py, ../../includes/review-matrix.md
  • 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: ../../hooks/_previewlib.py, ../../includes/review-matrix.md
  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
  • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
  • 100Steps. 15 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1097 tokens

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 163: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 6 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 15 items
  • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 63.