SKILLEMALL.ai

BB triage-issues

Work through the issues Sazabi opened on its own — rank them by severity and blast radius, find each one's cause in this repository with log evidence, and propose or draft one fix per issue, leaving issues open until a fix ships. Use when the user asks what is broken, what to fix first, to clean up or triage Sazabi issues, or for an on-call or morning review.

The skillemall take

Promises to triage bugs that Sazabi AI agent found: rank by severity and blast radius, trace causes in code with log evidence, draft fixes. In reality — one instruction file with 644 tokens, no scripts. Checks show grade B: quality 84%, process 69%, no critical findings. Runs on all major platforms including Claude and Cursor.

Catch: the skill contains no examples of real issue breakdowns, report templates, or ranking algorithms. You get instructions, not a tool — depends on how your AI interprets text. Works for morning reviews or on-call sweeps if you're already comfortable with that style. Install if you'll adapt it to your workflow; otherwise it's just a prompt.

superset-sh/superset Claude Code author: superset-sh 1 file body ≈ 644 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 7 d ago

Work through the issues Sazabi opened on its own — rank them by severity and blast radius, find each one's cause in this repository with log evidence, and…

As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerSoftware developmentData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
69/100
Nearly there
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 69/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
    • 100Steps. 7 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 644 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    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
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 361: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 7 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 7 items
    • +4Has examples (0 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.