SKILLEMALL.ai

AC dev-workflow

Structured development workflow inspired by Garry Tan's gstack. Use when the user wants to build a feature, start a project, do a code review, or ship code with a disciplined Think → Plan → Build → Review → Test → Ship process. Triggers on phrases like "start a project", "build a feature", "dev workflow", "ship code", "code review workflow", "plan and build", "structured development". Also useful when the user wants to run a disciplined development process with role-based subagents for analysis, design, review, QA, and release.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Jahonn Ding v1.0.0 MIT-0 3 files body ≈ 1 313 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 5 d ago

Structured development workflow inspired by Garry Tan's gstack.

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, consistency

ProcedureSoftware developmentOperations and projectstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
96
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (dev-workflow) differs from the folder (gstack-workflow)
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 46 steps
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1313 tokens

    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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 533: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 16 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 46 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This skill is a coherent development workflow, but its broad activation plus ship-phase git push/PR actions lack clear confirmation gates.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 14 Sept 2026