SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC advisor

Consult an independent, read-only GPT-6 Astra advisor before committing to a substantive interpretation, approach, or final result. Not for routine work, implementation, or file edits. Defaults to gpt-6-astra at xhigh for demanding reviews.

scdenney/open-science-skills Agent Skills author: scdenney NOASSERTION 3 files · 1 script body ≈ 1 021 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 4 d ago

Consult an independent, read-only GPT-6 Astra advisor before committing to a substantive interpretation, approach, or final result.

As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

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
B
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
79
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
58/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 31): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100

  • 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. 3 mutating operations with no state check
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 85Steps. 13 steps, 1 vague phrases
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1021 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
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
  • +3Description length 240: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 6 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 13 items
  • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
  • +3All 1 scripts are documented

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.