BC neckbeard
Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request through planning, gates, implementation, review, verified PR, and authorized release; continuing work started elsewhere with no packet via evidence-based position assessment; or operating tracked work items in Linear, Jira, or Notion via their tooling skills. neckbeard routes the change through framing, discovery, design, implementation, review, verification, and learning — choosing the smallest *safe* intervention, proving it at the real delivery boundary, and leaving an inspectable evidence ledger. For issue-to-PR work, conditionally loads a 9-phase journey with gates and lifecycle integration. Composes specialist catalog skills rather than replacing them. Not a persona or LOC-minimizer. Do not use this skill for unrelated requests; route to the nearest named specialist.
Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request through…
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/risk-authority-gates.md:115Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Do **not** trade persistence for privilege escalation, destructive recovery, or
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:97Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)approaches have failed. Never trade persistence for privilege escalation,
Files scanned: 41. 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. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 9 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3483 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
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
- +3Description length 927: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 9 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (12 of 12)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.