BB journal-review
Drafts a referee report on someone else's manuscript for a journal editor — a recommendation, a summary of the claim and design, three to six major concerns that drive the decision, additional concerns, and a coherent revision plan, produced by five parallel adversarial finders (Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void, Situator), a Blue Team error filter, a Chief Reviewer synthesis, and a Tone Guard legal pass, with an optional confidential note to the editor. Use when the user has been asked to referee a manuscript for a journal. Self-audit of the user's own draft goes to paper-review-lite or presubmit, and writing an author-side response to reviewers goes to referee-response.
Drafts a referee report on someone else's manuscript for a journal editor — a recommendation, a summary of the claim and design, three to six major concerns…
As a process B 72/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenSKILL.md:26High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)1. Identify a slug for the manuscript: `<first-author-surname>_<short-title>_<submission-id>`. Example: `Kim_…243`.
quoted
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 7043 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 72/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 16 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7043 tokens
- 85Steps. 32 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 15 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (12 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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 679: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 32 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 77.