SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB predictingthepast

Ancient text restoration, attribution, dating, contextualization, and embedding via Aeneas (Latin) / Ithaca (Ancient Greek). Use when asked to "restore", "attribute", "date", "contextualize", "find parallels", "where was it written", "when was it written", "embed", or "analyze" an ancient text, inscription, or epigraphic document, or when the user mentions "Aeneas", or "Ithaca".

google-deepmind/science-skills Agent Skills author: google-deepmind 10 files · 3 scripts body ≈ 3 543 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 h ago

Ancient text restoration, attribution, dating, contextualization, and embedding via Aeneas (Latin) / Ithaca (Ancient Greek).

As a process B 79/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

ProcedureGitHubData and analyticsAI 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
A
99/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
97
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
79/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Tools and files w 18
60
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: 10. 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 79/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Steps. 42 steps
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3543 tokens
    • low The response is described with custom markup (7 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)
    • -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 9 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 381: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 22 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 42 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 4)
    • +3All 3 scripts are documented

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 97.