SKILLEMALL.ai

AB agent-qa-gates

Output validation gates for AI agent systems. Prevents hallucinated data, leaked internal context, wrong formats, duplicate sends, post-compaction drift, and false delegated completions. Use when building or operating an agent that delivers output to humans or external systems. Provides a tiered gate system (internal → user-facing → external → code), protocol gates for recurring failure modes, delegated-work acceptance gates, severity classification, and a feedback loop for gate evolution. Triggers on phrases like "QA gates", "validation", "output quality", "prevent hallucination", "delivery checklist", "agent QA".

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Don Zurbrick v1.2.0 MIT-0 4 files · 1 script body ≈ 1 292 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
75/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
30
Running it twice w 4
30
Result and completion w 14
40
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 75/100

    • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Failures and branches. 4 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 50 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1292 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • 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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 622: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 15 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 50 items
    • +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: 92.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This appears to be a low-impact review/linting skill with some overbroad marketing and trigger wording, but no evidence of hidden, destructive, persistent, or data-exfiltrating behavior.
    LLM: benign (medium) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026