BC adu-plan-review
City-side ADU plan review — the flip side of adu-corrections-flow. Takes a plan binder PDF + city name, reviews each sheet against code-grounded checklists, checks state and city compliance, and generates a draft corrections letter with confidence flags and reviewer blanks. Coordinates three sub-skills (california-adu for state law, adu-city-research OR a dedicated city skill for city rules, adu-targeted-page-viewer for plan extraction). Triggers when a city plan checker uploads a plan binder for AI-assisted review.
City-side ADU plan review — the flip side of adu-corrections-flow.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: references/output-schemas.md, references/checklist-site-plan.md, references/checklist-floor-plan.md
The same skill appears in 1 more place: cc-crossbeam
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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/output-schemas.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checklist-site-plan.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checklist-floor-plan.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checklist-elevations.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checklist-structural.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checklist-mep-energy.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/corrections-letter-template.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100
- 0Tools and files. 7 referenced file(s) missing: references/output-schemas.md, references/checklist-site-plan.md, references/checklist-floor-plan.md
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 52 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3527 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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)
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 521: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 52 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.