SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB review-agentic-setup

Detect agentic coding infrastructure in a project: CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, installed skills, MCP servers, hooks, and cross-tool compatibility (Claude Code and Codex CLI). Returns structured findings about agentic readiness without applying changes. Use when the user asks to "review agentic setup", "check agentic setup", "agentic readiness", "is this project set up for AI coding", or "review AI coding setup".

tobihagemann/turbo Agent Skills author: tobihagemann MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 772 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 4 h ago

Detect agentic coding infrastructure in a project: CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, installed skills, MCP servers, hooks, and cross-tool compatibility (Claude Code and…

As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice, progress reporting

AnalyzerAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
68/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: turbo

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 68/100

    • 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
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 85Steps. 13 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1772 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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 409: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 12 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 13 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.