DB ralphex-adopt
Convert plans from various source formats (OpenSpec, spec-kit, GitHub/GitLab issues with checklists, generic task-lists, free-form markdown) into ralphex-format plans in docs/plans/. Triggers on "ralphex-adopt", "adopt plan", "convert plan to ralphex", "import plan as ralphex".
Convert plans from various source formats (OpenSpec, spec-kit, GitHub/GitLab issues with checklists, generic task-lists, free-form markdown) into…
As a process B 79/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Bash Read Write Glob Grep AskUserQuestion
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- error
name-missingSKILL.md: frontmatter has no `name` - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
Process rating: all ten parameters 79/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4871 tokens
- 85Steps. 124 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (22 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 278: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 124 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 45.