SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC ai-content-collaboration

How humans and AI compose in content workflows. Where AI legitimately participates, where humans must own, hybrid workflow patterns, voice ownership preservation, the AI slop problem, disclosure and transparency, team calibration, and the ethics of intellectually honest AI-assisted content production. Triggers on AI content workflow, AI-assisted writing, hybrid content production, AI in editorial, AI slop, AI disclosure, AI usage policy, AI content ethics, voice preservation with AI, team AI calibration. Also triggers when content feels generic despite quality tools, when team AI usage has drifted into inconsistency, or when a regulated or trust-sensitive context requires explicit AI policy.

rampstackco/claude-skills Agent Skills author: rampstackco 11 files body ≈ 5 388 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 8 h ago

How humans and AI compose in content workflows.

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

ProcedureData and analyticsAI and agentsWriting and documentstype 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
B
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
74
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 2 more places: claude-skills, claude-skills

How to improve

  1. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
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: 11. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 5388 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/

Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

  • 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
  • 30Running it twice. 13 mutating operations with no state check
  • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5388 tokens
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Steps. 93 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • low 14 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

  • +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
  • +4No input/output examples
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 700: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 15 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 93 items
  • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (9 of 9)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.