AC publish-service-change-feed
Publishes a validated GTFS Schedule update before the old calendar expires. Use when a service change, calendar rollover, stop rename, or route rename requires a new schedule export; when a public GTFS Schedule ZIP needs a Canonical GTFS Validator check for validity, specification problems, or a consumer publish gate; when exactly two public feeds for the same agency need a regression check; or when a static GTFS feed URL must be submitted for US fixed-route NTD reporting. Not for GTFS-Realtime feeds or feed-portal pages, route planning, live vehicle or arrival questions, automated judgments about whether a timetable reflects real service, predictions of a particular consumer's additional acceptance rules, or comparisons between agencies.
Publishes a validated GTFS Schedule update before the old calendar expires.
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
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: 4. 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 55/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 42 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3046 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- high The skill tells the model to perform an irreversible action with no human approval
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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 748: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 26 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 42 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.