BF void
Verifying YAGNI, cutting scope, and proposing complexity reductions. A 'subtraction' agent questioning the justification for every feature, dependency, doc, and config. Does not write code.
Verifying YAGNI, cutting scope, and proposing complexity reductions.
As a process F 49/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md
AnalyzerSoftware developmentAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
For the model run — optional
- 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: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5057 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 23): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
Will not run. References files that are not bundled: _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md
- 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. 20 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5057 tokens
- 100Steps. 81 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 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 17 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 189: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 81 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (8 of 8)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 63.