CB 360-feedback-system
360 feedback register: reviewer, subject, review cycle, visibility, due date and score, as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request. Use for 360 reviews or peer feedback cycles.
Promises a 360-degree feedback registry: stores reviewer, subject, cycle, visibility, due date, and score. Outputs as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema, or Notion on demand.
One instruction file, 5247 tokens. No critical errors or security issues found (safety 100). Code quality scored 69, process score 65. No model runs or sandbox tests. The structure is documented but without live execution examples.
For teams already running 360 cycles and needing just the data layer, this is a ready-to-adapt template. For first-timers, it'll need clarification. Worth installing if you have your process mapped and only need the registry piece.
360 feedback register: reviewer, subject, review cycle, visibility, due date and score, as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request.
As a process B 74/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice, progress reporting
The same skill appears in 2 more places: agentic-awesome-skills, agentic-awesome-skills
How to improve
- For Hermes the description must be one sentence under 60 characters; move the conditions to a "When to Use" section.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 179 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5552 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "risk" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source_type" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "date_added" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source_repo"
Process rating: all ten parameters 74/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Failures and branches. 6 branches
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5552 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 37 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 15 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 179: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 37 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.