AC magi
Deliberating decisions and founder priorities through multi-perspective, named-expert, and YC-style advisory lenses. Use for verdicts, office hours, or expert critique; not implementation.
Deliberating decisions and founder priorities through multi-perspective, named-expert, and YC-style advisory lenses.
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreference/strategy-simulation/scenario-planning-pitfalls.md:61Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- A Red Team or devil’s advocate reviewed the set.
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreference/strategy-simulation/wargaming-simulation.md:26Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)- **CSIS Futures Lab — "It Is Time to Democratize Wargaming Using Generative AI"**: argues GenAI shifts the cost of running wargames from honoraria + travel + facilitator time to data curation, enabli
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreference/strategy-simulation/wargaming-simulation.md:36Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Competitor response prediction | **Compete** | Red team / blue team, response probability, behavioral patterns |
Files scanned: 31. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6024 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6024 tokens
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 123 steps
- 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
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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 188: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 123 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (11 of 24)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.