AF solo-build
Execute implementation plan tasks with TDD workflow, auto-commit, and phase gates. Use when user says "build it", "start building", "execute plan", "implement tasks", "ship it", or references a track ID. Do NOT use for planning (use /plan) or scaffolding (use /scaffold).
Execute implementation plan tasks with TDD workflow, auto-commit, and phase gates.
As a process F 48/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: templates/stacks/{stack}.yaml
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Grep Bash Glob Write Edit AskUserQuestion mcp__solograph__session_search mcp__solograph__project_code_search mcp__solograph__codegraph_query mcp__solograph__web_search mcp__context
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/stacks/{stack}.yaml
Process rating: all ten parameters 48/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: templates/stacks/{stack}.yaml
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4519 tokens
- 85Steps. 110 steps, 3 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 14 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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 271: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 40 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 110 items
- +4Has examples (20 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.