BC code-explanation
Generate a complete, beginner-friendly explanation of an entire code repository as a set of markdown files. Maps the repo structure with `treecap` (installing it if missing), studies the actual source, then writes a `CODE_EXPLANATION/` folder containing an `OVERVIEW.md` plus numbered deep-dive files (01_architecture.md, 02_models.md, ...) that explain how the code is built, what it does, and how the pieces fit together — illustrated with real code excerpts. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand, document, onboard onto, or get a walkthrough of a codebase: phrases like "explain this repo", "explain the code", "code explanation", "walk me through this codebase", "help me understand how this is built", "document the architecture", or "what does this project do" — even if they don't say the word "skill". Prefer this over ad-hoc summaries whenever the goal is a durable, written explanation of a whole repo.
Promises to unpack any repository into markdown files explaining architecture, data models, and component relationships. Single file in the folder, no scripts. Grade B: code quality 86, process score 58. No critical errors, references intact. Never ran on models, untested in sandbox.
Whether it works in practice remains unclear. The skill uses `treecap` for structure mapping and parses source, but without actual runs on real codebases it's hard to judge how it handles large repos, circular dependencies, or exotic languages. Low process score relative to quality suggests the logic may be fragile. Worth installing if you're prepared to manually fix output files on complex projects.
Generate a complete, beginner-friendly explanation of an entire code repository as a set of markdown files.
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- 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
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 26 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1903 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 928: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.