AF cloud-architecture-diagrams
Build editable cloud architecture diagrams (Azure/Microsoft, AWS, GCP, Microsoft Fabric) using official vendor icons, output as both .excalidraw and .drawio with icons embedded and labeled arrows. Use to create, draw, recreate, or lay out a cloud or Microsoft Fabric architecture or solution diagram from a text description or by uploading a screenshot to reproduce.
Build editable cloud architecture diagrams (Azure/Microsoft, AWS, GCP, Microsoft Fabric) using official vendor icons, output as both .excalidraw and .drawio…
As a process F 39/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: assets/icons/aws/, assets/icons/azure/, assets/icons/gcp/
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenreferences/icon-index.json:26High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"category": "Arch…026",
quoted
Files scanned: 16. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/aws/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/azure/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/gcp/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/microsoft/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/fabric/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/icons/<provider>/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 107): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 39/100
- 0Tools and files. 6 referenced file(s) missing: assets/icons/aws/, assets/icons/azure/, assets/icons/gcp/
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Steps. 29 steps, 4 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3167 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 366: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 8 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.