SKILLEMALL.ai

AB local-conversation-history

Entry point for local AI conversation history across providers. Routes a request to the one skill that owns it, by platform (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Kimi CLI) and action (read evidence vs continue interrupted work), and owns the one job none of them own alone: a single inventory spanning all three providers. Use when the provider is unknown or plural ("our history", "what have I been working on", "which chats did I have"), when the user wants Kimi CLI history at all, when it is unclear whether they need evidence or resumption, or when they ask for this skill by name. Vague recall that names no platform ("we discussed this once, when was it?") belongs here rather than to a single-provider reader, because a Claude-only answer to an unscoped question cannot support an absence claim. When the platform and the action are both already clear, load that executor skill directly instead — except Kimi CLI, which has no reader or continuation skill of its own and always routes through here.

daymade/claude-code-skills Claude Code author: daymade 1 file body ≈ 2 035 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com analyzed 2 h ago

Entry point for local AI conversation history across providers.

As a process B 73/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting

IntegrationAI and agentsSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
85
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
73/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Failures and branches w 10
50
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: 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 73/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 7 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2035 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
    • 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)
    • +3Description length 996: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
    • +4Structure: 6 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 7 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 85.