BC codex-qa
QA the omo Codex Light edition (lazycodex / packages/omo-codex) itself, in strict isolation so ONLY our plugin is exercised, never the user's real ~/.codex. The first-party method drives the real `codex app-server` against an isolated CODEX_HOME plus a LOCAL mock model (no real API call), and proves a plugin hook fired by asserting hook/started + hook/completed notifications. Also: isolated install verification, per-component hook probes, a tmux TUI smoke, and runtime log observation (RUST_LOG / logs SQLite / /debug-config). Ships tested helper scripts each with a --self-test. Use whenever someone changes anything under packages/omo-codex or wants to QA, smoke-test, verify, or debug the Codex plugin, its hooks/components, the installer/config.toml, the app-server flow, or the Codex TUI. Triggers: codex qa, qa codex, codex-qa, test codex plugin, verify codex hook, codex app-server, lazycodex qa, isolated CODEX_HOME, prove codex hook fired, codex tui test.
QA the omo Codex Light edition (lazycodex / packages/omo-codex) itself, in strict isolation so ONLY our plugin is exercised, never the user's real ~/.codex.…
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, 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: 16. 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 56/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 8 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1659 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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)
- +3Description length 968: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -31 of 5 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.