SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC result-to-claim

Use when experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep Claude Code author: wanshuiyin MIT 1 file body ≈ 4 232 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 h ago

Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm).

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md

ProcedureSoftware developmenttype 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
86/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
72
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Result and completion w 14
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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 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 Grep Glob Write Edit mcp__codex__codex mcp__codex__codex-reply mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__grok__grok-reply mcp__

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

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/external-cadence.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/wiki-helper-resolution.md
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 43): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
  • 0Tools and files. 4 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4232 tokens
  • 100Steps. 31 steps
  • 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
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
  • low The response is described with custom markup (4 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

  • +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 313: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 16 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
  • +4Has examples (6 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.