SKILLEMALL.ai

AC brand-kit-to-video

Turn a brand's real assets into a short, on-brand showcase ad — the skill builds (or completes, or generates from scratch) a locked Brand Kit, then drives the same storyboard→video pipeline while keeping the logo, products, and palette strictly consistent. How it works: 1. Picks one of three on-ramps — the user brings ALL assets, SOME (you generate the gaps), or NONE (you generate the identity) 2. Builds and LOCKS a Brand Kit — logo, palette (named + hex), product heroes, type, style — as the reference set every later generation must honor 3. Can stop here (the kit is a deliverable), or go on to co-create a brand-ad shot plan 4. Generates a storyboard (GPT Image 2) referencing the LOCKED kit, then checks logo/product fidelity 5. Renders a short on-brand video (Seedance 2.0) — or composites the real logo back when the model can't reproduce it

genspark Agent Skills author: Genspark 1 file body ≈ 3 409 tokens Open the sourcegenspark.ai analyzed 3 d ago

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

ProcedureMarketingMedia and videotype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
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 60/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 70Failures and branches. 5 branches
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 33 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3409 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 15 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
    • low The response is described with custom markup (5 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 854: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Structure: 16 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
    • +4Has examples (5 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.