SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC technical-spec

Technical specification and design document expert. Use when writing design docs, RFCs, ADRs, or evaluating technology choices. Covers C4 model, system design, and architecture documentation.

majiayu000/spellbook Agent Skills author: majiayu000 MIT 8 files body ≈ 3 215 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 3 d ago

Technical specification and design document expert.

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

IntegrationPostgreSQLData and analyticstype 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%
99
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security templates/design-doc-template.md:399
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - [Penetration testing, vulnerability scanning]

    Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 181, 384): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    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
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 85Steps. 37 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3215 tokens
    • low 10 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
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 191: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 37 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 37 items
    • +4Has examples (19 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 5)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.