CD hps-academic-paper
A review deck on compositional generalization in large language models — the field map, the gap, the evidence, and open questions. Built as a decision-grade academic research deck for PI, lab group, reviewers.
A review deck on compositional generalization in large language models — the field map, the gap, the evidence, and open questions.
As a process D 40/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: assets/themes/academic-paper.css, templates/deck.html
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/themes/academic-paper.css - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/deck.html - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "en_name" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "zh_name" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "en_description" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "zh_description" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "od" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 46): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 40/100
- 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: assets/themes/academic-paper.css, templates/deck.html
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 26 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1873 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low The response is described with custom markup (5 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 209: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 56.