BF config
Vovk.ts configuration — vovk.config.{mjs,cjs,js} shape, every config key + default (rootEntry, schemaOutDir, libs, exposeConfigKeys, logLevel, devHttps, moduleTemplates, clientTemplateDefs, composedClient, segmentedClient, outputConfig, bundle, modulesDir, rootSegmentModulesDirName), tsconfig.json setup (experimentalDecorators). Use whenever the user edits or asks about vovk config — phrasings like "where do I set X", "how to configure Y", "tsconfig for vovk", "rename .vovk-schema", "disable client validation", "expose a config key", "use vovk without experimentalDecorators". Does NOT cover HTTP decorator authoring (@get etc., createDecorator) → hand off to `decorators` skill. Does NOT cover bundle CLI flow → `bundle` skill. Does NOT cover composed vs segmented client output internals → `rpc` skill.
A skill covering Vovk.ts configuration—vovk.config.{mjs,cjs,js} setup and tsconfig.json requirements. Promises help when editing config, asking about schema output paths, modules, logging, dev HTTPS, and client validation toggles.
The file lists all config keys with defaults (rootEntry, schemaOutDir, libs, etc.) and notes the experimentalDecorators requirement. No test runs, but grade B and quality_score 83 suggest solid coverage. The skill explicitly excludes HTTP decorator authoring—that's a separate skill.
Worth installing if you frequently tweak Vovk config or need to guide others through its structure.
Vovk.ts configuration — vovk.config.{mjs,cjs,js} shape, every config key + default (rootEntry, schemaOutDir, libs, exposeConfigKeys, logLevel, devHttps…
As a process F 34/100 · No process to follow — weak spots: steps, result and completion, inputs and preconditions
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 34/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1389 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 810: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.