SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC skill-release-gate

Evaluate an Agent Skill bundle for structural integrity, trigger quality, artifact improvement, script correctness, safety, installed-tree integrity, and target-host portability before release.

rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch Agent Skills author: rohitg00 MIT 8 files · 1 script body ≈ 937 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 35 h ago

Evaluate an Agent Skill bundle for structural integrity, trigger quality, artifact improvement, script correctness, safety, installed-tree integrity, and…

As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerAI and agentstype 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
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
64/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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: 5. 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 64/100

    • 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
    • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 11 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 937 tokens
    • medium 6 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"
    • low No test case covers injection arriving through data

    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 193: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 4 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.

    In the sandbox Скрипты не запустились

    The skill's scripts were run in a throwaway machine: no network, fake keys in the home directory, a tracer watching. We wrote down what they did. Reaching for the network or for secrets caps the technical grade at C; a quiet run adds no points.

    Запущено 1 скрипт; каждому дали двадцать секунд, поддельный домашний каталог с ключами и сеть, в которой ничего нет.

    Ни один не дошёл до работы — им не хватило зависимостей, аргументов или файлов. Это не отзыв о поведении: наблюдать было не за чем.

    scripts/evaluate_skill.pyне запустился: }

    4 Oct 2026