SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB full-stack-orchestration-full-stack-feature

Use when working with full stack orchestration full stack feature

modbender/skill-library-mcp Agent Skills author: modbender MIT 1 file body ≈ 2 560 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 27 h ago

Use when working with full stack orchestration full stack feature

As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting

ProcedureInfrastructureSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw 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) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
77
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
68/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Result and completion w 14
40
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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:83
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)
      - Prompt: "Perform security audit for: $ARGUMENTS. Review API security (authentication, authorization, rate limiting), check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, audit frontend for XSS/CSRF risks, valida
      quoted

    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 68/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 17 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 78 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2560 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)
    • +3Description length 65: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Structure: 22 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 78 items

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 77.