CF test-conformance
Audit a codebase's testing regime using a reusable protocol, source/runner reconciliation, sampled oracle review and evidence-backed conformance reports.
Audit a codebase's testing regime using a reusable protocol, source/runner reconciliation, sampled oracle review and evidence-backed conformance reports.
As a process F 33/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: ../../docs/conformance-workflow.md, ../../rules/test-conformance-evidence.md, ../../templates/protocol-review.md
The same skill appears in 1 more place: aiwg
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Concealment
en-hide-from-userSKILL.md:23Instruction to hide actions from the user (negated — the text forbids it)hashes, versions and coverage denominator. Registration and execution are separate evidence. Do not silently install
negated
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/conformance-workflow.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../rules/test-conformance-evidence.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../templates/protocol-review.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../templates/test-review.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../templates/conformance-report.md - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "namespace"
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: ../../docs/conformance-workflow.md, ../../rules/test-conformance-evidence.md, ../../templates/protocol-review.md
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Steps. 6 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 567 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)
- +4Structure: 1 headings, hard to scan
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 153: enough signal without eating the budget
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 6 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 51.