SKILLEMALL.ai

AC project-brainstorming

Guides project ideation via Socratic questioning to produce a validated brief. Use before specification when requirements are unclear

ClawHub Agent Skills author: athola v1.9.19 MIT-0 4 files body ≈ 3 108 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, consistency

AnalyzerInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
98
Quality 40%
82
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
63/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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 · 2

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 2
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:205
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Red Team challenges for each approach
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:289
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      [From Phase 3.5 - includes RS assessment, Red Team challenges, premortem]

    Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "source"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "source_plugin"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100

    • 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
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (project-brainstorming) differs from the folder (nm-attune-project-brainstorming)
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 85Steps. 109 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3108 tokens
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • 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)
    • -230 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 133: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 21 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 109 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (9 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This is a project-brainstorming skill, but it automatically saves and forwards project details into other agent/LLM workflow steps without a clear confirmation checkpoint.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 26 Aug 2026