SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BD verify-bb

Verify BB user journeys in an isolated source dev app using dev-browser@next and the matching source CLI. Use after BB feature changes or when asked to verify or smoke-test BB. The feature map covers core UI and agent interfaces, every repository plugin, desktop, mobile, and hosted services; select the affected recipes and platform prerequisites.

get-bb/bb Agent Skills author: get-bb MIT 59 files · 2 scripts body ≈ 3 071 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Verify BB user journeys in an isolated source dev app using dev-browser@next and the matching source CLI.

As a process D 41/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: validation-2026-09-05.json

AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
76
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
D
41/100
Unfinished process
References files that are not bundled: validation-2026-09-05.json
Tools and files w 18
0
Steps w 15
0
Result and completion w 14
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
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: 59. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: validation-2026-09-05.json
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 79): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 41/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: validation-2026-09-05.json
  • 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: validation-2026-09-05.json
  • 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
  • 100Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3071 tokens
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • 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

  • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +3No numbered steps or checklist
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 348: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 7 headings
  • +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
  • +3All 2 scripts are documented

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.