BD reader-first-technical-edit
Edit mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship, law-and-economics models, and legal-technology research. Clarifies terminology, antecedents, study design, and claim–statistic relationships while checking equations, numbers, quotations, and citations against the source. Use to clarify exposition or de-jargonize a technical draft; not to rewrite briefs or doctrinal arguments. Produces an edited draft and audit memo. Full integrity checks and original-format rendering require suitable extraction, code execution, and document tools; otherwise provides proposed edits with verification limits disclosed.
Edit mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship…
As a process D 39/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: NOTICE
How to improve
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: NOTICE
Process rating: all ten parameters 39/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: NOTICE
- 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
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (reader-first-technical-edit) differs from the folder (reader-first-technical-edit-seth-chandler)
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 6 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3858 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 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 701: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 6 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.