AB discussion-conventions-diagnosis
Diagnose academic-writing conventions in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks the Achievement/Contribution statement (placement, type among 4 — method / results / impact / application), limitations writing, future-work conventions, citation density and function, and the use of "happy words" / appropriate hedging. Triggers on "check conventions", "contribution statement", "happy words", "limitation check", "future work check", "Discussion 学术规范", "讨论贡献", "讨论局限性", etc. Does NOT generate or rewrite prose.
Diagnose academic-writing conventions in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- 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: 11. 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 65/100
- 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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 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. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1034 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 532: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.