SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB ai-usage-policy

Write an AI usage policy people can actually follow — approved tools, data rules, disclosure duties, and review obligations, in one page instead of legal fog. Use when asked for a company AI policy, acceptable-use rules for ChatGPT/Claude/Copilot at work, guidance on what data may go into AI tools, or to fix a policy nobody reads. Produces a one-page usable policy plus the decision log behind it. Not a substitute for legal advice; pairs with compliance-checklist for regulatory mapping and ai-ethics-review for system-level assessments.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills Agent Skills author: mohitagw15856 MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 349 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Write an AI usage policy people can actually follow — approved tools, data rules, disclosure duties, and review obligations, in one page instead of legal fog.

As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice

GeneratorAI and agentsSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: 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) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
83
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
69/100
Nearly there
Failures and branches w 10
0
When it triggers w 12
20
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: ai-usage-policy (mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills)

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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    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 69/100

    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 28 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1349 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    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)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 540: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.