AB rd-initiation-review
R&D project initiation pre-screen and proposal audit for go/no-go decisions, public novelty boundary review, innovation-point assessment, and evidence-backed project rating. Use when the user asks for project initiation pre-screening, initiation review, proposal review, R&D project evaluation, proposal-package review, novelty pre-screening, innovation-point review, project rating, or wants a formal review around a concrete project, proposal, or research-package material set — even if they only provide the proposal and do not explicitly say "review".
R&D project initiation pre-screen and proposal audit for go/no-go decisions, public novelty boundary review, innovation-point assessment, and evidence-backed…
As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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: 18. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "copyright" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "provider" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "deliverable-default" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "fallback-policy"
Process rating: all ten parameters 69/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 8 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
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4018 tokens
- 85Steps. 165 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 12 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 555: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 37 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 165 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (7 of 7)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.