BC bluebook-writing
Write design-reading books and articles in plain language with a two-layer skeleton: a zero-terminology everyday story first, then the professional layer with formal names, mechanisms, boundaries, and costs. Use when explaining unfamiliar systems to non-programmers.
Promises a two-layer framework for explaining complex systems: everyday narrative first, then professional terminology with mechanisms and boundaries. One instruction file, 2133 tokens, no scripts, no critical errors. Safety scores 100, quality 76, process 55—the structure exists but implementation details are vague. Works on Claude and Hermes.
The catch: the skill teaches what to write but not how to actually transition between layers or where to draw the line between plain story and formal names. It's guidance, not a formula. Good enough for an editor standardizing technical writing; not enough for someone expecting a ready-made transformation system. Install if you need a style template; skip if you need automation.
Write design-reading books and articles in plain language with a two-layer skeleton: a zero-terminology everyday story first, then the professional layer with…
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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.
- 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 266 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "risk" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source_repo" - 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 "license_source"
Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 35 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2133 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 266: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 35 items
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.