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.
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
The same skill appears in 1 more place: Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Obfuscation
obf-base64-blobreferences/lean-working-loop.md:183Long 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: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5458 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-routing.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/fan-out-pattern.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 340): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions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
- 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 5458 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.