SKILLEMALL.ai

AB review-structure

Repo-wide structural-maintainability review — code-judo restructurings, 1k-line file guard, anti-spaghetti branching, canonical-layer enforcement, anti-magic abstractions, explicit type/boundary contracts.

ClawHub Claude Code author: Kevin Anderson v1.0.0 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 3 461 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 28 h ago

Repo-wide structural-maintainability review — code-judo restructurings, 1k-line file guard, anti-spaghetti branching, canonical-layer enforcement, anti-magic…

As a process B 70/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentsWriting and documentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
70/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
Inputs and preconditions w 11
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")

Process rating: all ten parameters 70/100

  • 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. 15 mutating operations with no state check
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 85Steps. 91 steps, 1 vague phrases
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3461 tokens
  • low 13 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)
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 205: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 14 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 91 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.

External checks

ClawHub: clean
This is a non-executable code-review skill that asks the agent to inspect repository changes for maintainability issues, with no evidence of hidden execution, credential access, persistence, or exfiltration.
LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 3 Jun 2026