SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC paper-illustration-image2

Generate publication-quality academic illustrations through a local Codex app-server bridge that uses Codex native image generation. This is a separate experimental alternative to `paper-illustration`, intended for Claude Code users who want a GPT-image-style renderer without modifying the original skill.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep Claude Code author: wanshuiyin MIT 2 files · 1 script body ≈ 4 416 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 6 h ago

Generate publication-quality academic illustrations through a local Codex app-server bridge that uses Codex native image generation.

As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/integration-contract.md

GeneratorLaTeXDesignSoftware developmentAI 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
84/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
67
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
59/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/integration-contract.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: paper-illustration-image2 (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. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
  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 · 1

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 1
  • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
    Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(*)
    allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Write Edit Grep Glob WebSearch mcp_…ate mcp_…art mcp_…tus mcp__codex__codex mcp__codex__codex-reply mc

Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/integration-contract.md
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 87): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/integration-contract.md
  • 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/integration-contract.md
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4416 tokens
  • 85Steps. 107 steps, 3 vague phrases
  • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
  • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • low 16 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)
  • -214 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 306: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 26 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 107 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
  • +3All 1 scripts are documented

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.