AB solo-retro
Post-pipeline retrospective — parse logs, score process quality, find waste patterns, suggest skill/script patches. Use after pipeline completes or when user says "retro", "evaluate pipeline", "what went wrong", "pipeline review", "check pipeline logs".
Post-pipeline retrospective — parse logs, score process quality, find waste patterns, suggest skill/script patches.
As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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
- 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__codegraph_explain mcp__solograph__codegraph_query
Files scanned: 3. 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 69/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4516 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 148 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 16 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 253: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 24 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 148 items
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.