SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CF gemini

Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini on Google Ads strategy, SEO best practices, or implementation questions). Use when the user says "gemini review", "ask gemini", "gemini challenge", "second opinion from gemini", "consult gemini", "stress test with gemini", "what would gemini say", "cross-model review", or "get another opinion". Voice aliases: "gem", "gemini check". Especially useful for Google Ads changes, SEO metadata updates, campaign structure decisions, keyword strategies, and bid/budget changes — Gemini has native Google ecosystem knowledge that complements Claude's analysis.

nowork-studio/notfair-plugin Claude Code author: nowork-studio MIT 1 file body ≈ 54 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge.

As a process F 26/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: ../../gemini/WORKFLOW.md

AnalyzerMarketingtype 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
C
81/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
53
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
26/100
No process to follow
References files that are not bundled: ../../gemini/WORKFLOW.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Steps w 15
0
Result and completion w 14
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
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

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../../gemini/WORKFLOW.md
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"

Process rating: all ten parameters 26/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../../gemini/WORKFLOW.md
  • 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../gemini/WORKFLOW.md
  • 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
  • 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
  • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 54 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

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)
  • +3Description length 872: 120–800 characters recommended
  • +4Structure: 1 headings, hard to scan
  • +3No numbered steps or checklist
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +4No input/output examples
  • -15SKILL.md body under 300 characters: nearly empty
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 10 example trigger phrases

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 53.