AB linkedin-hook-extractor
Reverse-engineer the hook formula from a viral LinkedIn post URL. Returns which of the 16 canonical 2026 formulas it uses (anaphora, R.I.P., year-pivot, time-anchor, curiosity-gap, contrarian, comment-gate, emotional cold-open, named-gratitude, and 7 more), why it worked, and a blank template. Use to learn from a competitor's post, not to write your own (use linkedin-post-writer).
As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, running it twice, progress reporting
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 66/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 27 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 670 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 383: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 27 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.