SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BB sparc-implement

Run the SPARC Pseudocode and Architecture phases (2 and 3) — write algorithm pseudocode, design module boundaries and API contracts, then implement

ruvnet/claude-flow Claude Code author: ruvnet MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 165 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 29 h ago

Run the SPARC Pseudocode and Architecture phases (2 and 3) — write algorithm pseudocode, design module boundaries and API contracts, then implement

As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

IntegrationInfrastructuretype 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
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
71/100
Nearly there
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

What is at stake

Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.

Broad scope medium severity

Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.

If you install

The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.

For the author

Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.

How to improve

    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 · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
      Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash
      allowed-tools: mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_store mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_search mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_retrieve mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__task_create mcp__plugi

    Files scanned: 1. 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 71/100

    • 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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 9 steps
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1165 tokens

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 147: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 4 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 9 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.