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. A secondary Codex agent 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.
A secondary Codex agent evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm).
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
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
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(*)allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Grep Glob Write Edit mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__grok__grok-reply mcp__claude-review__review mcp__claude-review__
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 40): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 50/100
- 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/evidence-precheck.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3118 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 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 327: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.