AC appendix-table-writer
Curate reader-facing survey tables for the Appendix (clean layout + high information density), using only in-scope evidence and existing citation keys. **Trigger**: appendix tables, publishable tables, survey tables, reader tables, 附录表格, 可发表表格, 综述表格. **Use when**: you have C4 artifacts (evidence packs + anchor sheet + citations) and want tables that look like a real survey (not internal logs). **Skip if**: `outline/tables_appendix.md` already exists and is refined (>=2 tables; citation-backed; no placeholders; not index-y). **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: no invented facts; no pipeline jargon; no paragraph cells; use only keys present in `citations/ref.bib`.
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — 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: 21. 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 63/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 15 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) 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
- 85Steps. 78 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1553 tokens
- low 10 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)
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 668: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 78 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.