BC vet
Run vet immediately after ANY logical unit of code changes. Do not batch your changes, do not wait to be asked to run vet, make sure you are proactive.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
GeneratorSoftware developmentInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
How to improve
- 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: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Failures and branches. 4 branches
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1390 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 151: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This appears to be a legitimate code-review helper, but it deserves Review because it can proactively read local coding-agent session histories and feed rich conversation/tool-output data into vet without clear per-run user control.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: suspicious · 28 May 2026