CF ghostclaw
Architectural code review and refactoring assistant that perceives code vibes and system-level flow issues. Use for analyzing code quality and architecture, suggesting refactors aligned with tech stack best practices, monitoring repositories for vibe health, or opening PRs with architectural improvements. Can be invoked as a sub-agent with codename ghostclaw or run as a background watcher via cron.
Architectural code review and refactoring assistant that perceives code vibes and system-level flow issues.
As a process F 33/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: references/stack-patterns/, scripts/notify.sh, assets/refactor-templates/
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: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/stack-patterns/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/notify.sh - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/refactor-templates/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 51): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: references/stack-patterns/, scripts/notify.sh, assets/refactor-templates/
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Steps. 33 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1105 tokens
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
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- -41 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -31 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 401: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 61.