SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC skill-author

The authoring gate for new skills. Routed to when the user invokes /new-skill "<gap>". Five gated phases — gap evidence, scope, authoring, self-review against the v2 house style, routing integration. A new skill is not written until an existing one is proven not to cover the gap, and not shipped until it carries gated phases, hard rules, and a routing entry. Every authored skill matches the v2 format (frontmatter name+description,

arbiterForge/codeArbiter Agent Skills author: arbiterForge AGPL-3.0 2 files body ≈ 2 385 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 25 h ago

The authoring gate for new skills.

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentsData and analyticstype 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
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 3 more places: codeArbiter, codeArbiter, codeArbiter

How to improve

    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: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 67, 102): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (git) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Steps. 42 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2385 tokens
    • 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 (17 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)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 434: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 42 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.