BF reflect-critique-revise
|
As a process F 33/100 · Will not run — weak spots: steps, result and completion, when it triggers
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
frontmatter-yamlSKILL.md: the frontmatter is not valid YAML (YAML parse error: Unexpected block-scalar-header at node end at line 18, column 19: - domain: "ios" | "web" | "python" | "trading" | "vc" | "general" ^ ); fields were read line by line. The usual cause is a colon inside an unquoted value - warning
description-shortdescription under 40 chars: too little signal for triggering - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "inputs" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "outputs"
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 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
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1490 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)
- +3Description length 1: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +4Has examples (12 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 45.
External checks
ClawHub: clean
This is a coherent code-review helper that uses an LLM to critique and revise supplied code, with no evidence of hidden persistence, credential access, or destructive behavior.
LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026