AB tech-route-comparison
Evidence-backed comparison of two or more technical routes, architectures, or solution paths. Use when the user asks for technical pre-research, technical route comparison, route selection, TRL assessment, maturity assessment, readiness evaluation, opportunity mapping, or any management-grade technical report deliverable — even if they only ask for initiation analysis, committee-ready materials, feasibility, or "which route is better".
Evidence-backed comparison of two or more technical routes, architectures, or solution paths.
As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, 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: 19. 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
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 5 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
- 85Steps. 151 steps, 3 vague phrases
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3285 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- 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 439: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 31 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 151 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.