AC monorepo-management
Monorepo tooling, task orchestration, and workspace architecture for JavaScript/TypeScript repositories. Use when setting up Turborepo, Nx, pnpm workspaces, or npm workspaces; designing package boundaries; configuring remote caching; optimizing CI for affected packages; managing versioning with Changesets; or untangling circular dependencies. Activate on "monorepo", "turborepo", "nx", "pnpm workspace", "task pipeline", "remote cache", "changesets", "CODEOWNERS", "circular dependency", "affected packages", "workspace". NOT for git submodules or multi-repo federation strategies, non-JavaScript monorepos (Bazel, Pants, Buck), or single-package repository setup.
Monorepo tooling, task orchestration, and workspace architecture for JavaScript/TypeScript repositories.
As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Grep Glob Bash
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 52): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 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
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3018 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low 10 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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 10 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 666: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 97.