BB ulw-plan
ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user request for the ulw-plan workflow: the user themselves saying ulw-plan, ulw plan, /skill:ulw-plan, or asking in their own words for a work plan before coding. NEVER self-activates: a bare ulw/ultrawork run, an agent-side routing decision, or reading this file is not a request, and the plan-gated reviewers (metis/momus) stay locked without a user request plus a written .omo/plans plan file. Explore-first planning consultant (Prometheus) that grounds in the codebase, asks only the forks exploration cannot resolve - or researches them to best practice when the intent is fuzzy - waits for explicit approval, then writes ONE decision-complete work plan a worker executes with zero further interview. Triggers: ulw-plan, ulw plan, plan this, make a plan, plan before coding, interview me, break this down, start planning, plan mode.
ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user request for the ulw-plan workflow: the user themselves saying ulw-plan, ulw plan, /skill:ulw-plan, or asking in their own…
As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, 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: 6. 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 71/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 17 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3469 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 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 (12 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 868: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 17 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.