BC thesis-assesor
Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.
Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty…
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, consistency
How to improve
- 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 Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:189Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)## Run a sustainable scholarly red team
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 59/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (thesis-assesor) differs from the folder (thesis-assesor-seth-chandler)
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 47 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3972 tokens
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The skill ranks results itself: that belongs to the system behind the tool, not the model
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 728: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 47 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.