BF review-llm-artifacts
Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts across four categories (tests, dead code, abstraction, style) over the project or changed files — using parallel subagents when the agent supports them, otherwise four sequential passes. Scans files changed since main by default; use --all for full-project scan. Triggers on LLM cruft cleanup, agent-generated code review, dead code sweeps, test-quality passes, or when the user asks to scan the whole repo.
Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts across four categories (tests, dead code, abstraction, style) over the project or changed files — using parallel…
As a process F 65/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md, ../verify-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md, ../fix-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../verify-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../fix-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 116): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 0Tools and files. 4 referenced file(s) missing: ../llm-artifacts-detection/SKILL.md, ../verify-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md, ../fix-llm-artifacts/SKILL.md
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 53 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3055 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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)
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 449: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 53 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.