SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC write-review-artifact

Composes the final Technical Reviewer artifact at ops/technical-reviewer/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}-review.md. Enforces frontmatter schema, section order (Summary → Blockers → Claims → Boundary-Break Suggestions → Glossary Alignment → Could-Not-Verify → Research Log), go/no-go decision rule, and never-modify-draft principle. Use exactly once per Technical Reviewer run as the last step. Trigger keywords — write review, technical review artifact, compose review, claim review output.

lyndonkl/claude Agent Skills author: lyndonkl 1 file body ≈ 449 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 16 h ago

Composes the final Technical Reviewer artifact at ops/technical-reviewer/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}-review.md. Enforces frontmatter schema, section order (Summary →…

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

AnalyzerWriting and documentstype 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
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
When it triggers w 12
20
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: 1. 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

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Steps. 17 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 449 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 476: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 5 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 17 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.