SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC lean-formalize

Develop and verify a mathematical proof in Lean, continue an incomplete Lean project, or audit whether it proves the original statement. Connect actual inputs to intermediate lemmas, assemble the target theorem, check its transitive axioms, and provide a reproducible handoff. Use when Lean is requested or a specific proof obligation benefits from formal verification; use proof-writer for ordinary mathematical drafting.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep Claude Code author: wanshuiyin MIT 4 files body ≈ 5 456 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 13 h ago

Develop and verify a mathematical proof in Lean, continue an incomplete Lean project, or audit whether it proves the original statement.

As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md, ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md

AnalyzerSoftware developmentData and analyticsAI 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
C
82/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
93
Quality 40%
66
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
64/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md, ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: lean-formalize (wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep)

What is at stake

Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.

Broad scope medium severity

Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.

If you install

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.

For the author

Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.

How to improve

  1. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
  2. 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 · 3

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 3
  • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
    Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(*)
    allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Write Edit Grep Glob Agent Skill mcp__codex__codex mcp__codex__codex-reply mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__grok__grok
  • low Obfuscation obf-base64-blob references/lean-working-loop.md:183
    Long base64-looking blob (documentation of a security skill)
    and [planning](https://github.com/lbx154/Argus/blob/9cfe…008/argus/verticals/math/skills/planner/math-research-planning.md).
    security skill

A further 1 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.

Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 5456 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 340): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 64/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md, ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md
  • 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md, ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5456 tokens
  • 100Steps. 25 steps
  • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
  • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place

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 422: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 13 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
  • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
  • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 66.