SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC terraform-azurerm-set-diff-analyzer

Analyze Terraform plan JSON output for AzureRM Provider to distinguish between false-positive diffs (order-only changes in Set-type attributes) and actual resource changes. Use when reviewing terraform plan output for Azure resources like Application Gateway, Load Balancer, Firewall, Front Door, NSG, and other resources with Set-type attributes that cause spurious diffs due to internal ordering changes.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 6 files body ≈ 426 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 27 h ago

Analyze Terraform plan JSON output for AzureRM Provider to distinguish between false-positive diffs (order-only changes in Set-type attributes) and actual…

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, running it twice

AnalyzerTerraformAzureInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

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: 5. 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 54/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 8 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 426 tokens

    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
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 406: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 7 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.