CD idea-spark
Generate ONE reviewer-defensible, implementable research idea with a concrete method and falsification plan from a stated research direction. Use when the user asks for a research idea, novelty analysis, bottleneck diagnosis, or paper-shape suggestion. Skip code review, debugging, and unconstrained brainstorming without research context.
Generate ONE reviewer-defensible, implementable research idea with a concrete method and falsification plan from a stated research direction.
As a process D 39/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: references/design-notes.md
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvreferences/setup.md:21Reads a .env file (quoted — discussed, not commanded)3. **Copy** the env template at the project root: `cp .env.template .env`.
quoted -
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvreferences/setup.md:33Reads a .env file (detector / deny-list definition)6. **The orchestrator auto-loads `.env`** at runtime (walks up from skill dir to find `.env`), so you do NOT need to `source .env` in your shell. Shell-set env vars take precedence over `.env` values,
detector
Files scanned: 80. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/design-notes.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 73): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 39/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/design-notes.md
- 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
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (idea-spark) differs from the folder (idea_spark)
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 10 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2800 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (7 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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
- -34 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 339: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 10 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 11)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.