SKILLEMALL.ai

AB swmm-modeling-memory

Read historical Agentic SWMM experiment audit artifacts and summarize repeated assumptions, QA issues, failures, missing evidence, run-to-run differences, lessons learned, and controlled skill update proposals. Use downstream of swmm-experiment-audit when multiple audited runs exist or when a user asks for modeling memory, failure-pattern extraction, lessons learned, or human-reviewed skill refinement proposals.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Zhonghao Zhang v0.7.3 MIT-0 4 files body ≈ 1 382 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

Read historical Agentic SWMM experiment audit artifacts and summarize repeated assumptions, QA issues, failures, missing evidence, run-to-run differences…

As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, progress reporting

AnalyzerObsidianLearningtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
90
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
66/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
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 66/100

    • 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
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Steps. 42 steps
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1382 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 415: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 42 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill appears to be a memory/run summarization tool, but it has under-scoped filesystem write behavior that users should review before installing.
    LLM: suspicious (medium) · VirusTotal: · 12 Jun 2026