BC maintain-formal-verification-skill
Bring a project's formal verification back in line with the code after the code changes: find the commits that touched verified code, update the model, harness, or properties to describe the code as it is now, rerun, and say whether each failure is drift in the verification or a bug in the code. Use for /maintain-formal-verification-skill, "is the model still true to the code", or after merges and refactors that touched verified code without rechecking it.
Bring a project's formal verification back in line with the code after the code changes: find the commits that touched verified code, update the model…
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
The same skill appears in 1 more place: plugins
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: 1. 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 53/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 20 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 21 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1614 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 460: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 5 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.