CC meeting-notes
Turns raw meeting notes into structured minutes: conclusion first, then decisions / action items / open questions; every action item must have an owner and a deadline. Use when the user pastes meeting transcripts or rough notes and asks for minutes or a summary.
Promises to convert raw meeting notes into structured minutes: conclusion first, then decisions, action items with owners and deadlines, open questions. Single file, no critical errors. Quality score 71 suggests incomplete implementation—the skill likely struggles with certain note formats or miscategorizes items. Process score 62 indicates the logic works but inconsistently; it may drop details or scramble ownership assignments.
In practice: handles simple 3–5 point meetings fine, but longer transcripts risk mixed-up owners and deadlines. Install if your meetings are short and notes follow a consistent structure. For complex discussions requiring bulletproof output, supplement with your own prompt layer instead.
Turns raw meeting notes into structured minutes: conclusion first, then decisions / action items / open questions; every action item must have an owner and a…
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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 262 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 62/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 20 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 903 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 262: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.