AF readme-craft
README 写作与优化。从零创建、审计已有、或重写 README。 蒸馏自 OMC/ECC 实战 README + awesome-readme/Standard README/Art of README 社区标准 + ClawHub 10+ README skills。 当需要为项目写 README、审计 README 质量、或重写现有 README 时使用。 不适用于：API 文档生成（用 doc-gen）、CHANGELOG 生成（用 git log）、CLAUDE.md 编写（那是机器配置，不是人类文档）。
As a process F 35/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: docs/api.md
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Grep Glob Bash AskUserQuestion WebFetch Agent
Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: docs/api.md - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers"
Process rating: all ten parameters 35/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: docs/api.md
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1929 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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 261: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 27 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (5 of 5)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.