AF utility-pm-critic
Run adversarial review on a PM artifact via the pm-critic sub-agent. Returns findings graded P0/P1/P2/P3 with a concrete fix suggestion per finding and a machine-readable status block. Use after producing a PRD, meeting recap, OKR set, persona, or any PM artifact you want stress-tested before it ships.
Run adversarial review on a PM artifact via the pm-critic sub-agent.
As a process F 42/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../../docs/reference/sub-agent-compatibility.md, ../../docs/internal/release-plans/v2.16.0/maintainer-gate-testing-codex.md, ../../agents/pm-critic.md
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 · 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
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/reference/sub-agent-compatibility.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/internal/release-plans/v2.16.0/maintainer-gate-testing-codex.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../agents/pm-critic.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/internal/release-plans/v2.16.0/spec_pm-critic.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/guides/adversarial-review.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../docs/reference/runtime-components.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 42/100
- 0Tools and files. 6 referenced file(s) missing: ../../docs/reference/sub-agent-compatibility.md, ../../docs/internal/release-plans/v2.16.0/maintainer-gate-testing-codex.md, ../../agents/pm-critic.md
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 85Steps. 28 steps, 3 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1406 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
- +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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 303: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.