SKILLEMALL.ai

AB game-dev-team-gap

Help a beginner or early-stage game team figure out which roles, skills, or disciplines they are missing for a given game concept and target scope. Use when someone asks who they are missing, whether their current team can realistically build the project, what roles they still need, what the riskiest team gaps are, or what the minimum viable team would be if no team is described yet. Ask about the game concept, target platform, intended milestone or scope, team composition, and actual skillset, then identify likely gaps, role overlaps, risky weak spots, and the smallest workable team shape.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Stanislav Stankovic v1.0.0 MIT-0 4 files body ≈ 1 616 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice, progress reporting

GeneratorInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
75/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
30
Running it twice w 4
30
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: 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 75/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 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
    • 70Failures and branches. 5 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 87 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1616 tokens
    • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    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)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 597: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 26 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 87 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a markdown-only planning skill for identifying game development team gaps, with no evidence of system access, credential use, persistence, or hidden behavior.
    LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026