AB prfaq-beagle
Use when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: "work backwards", "write a PRFAQ", "press release first", "is this idea worth building", "pressure-test this concept", "filter this before brainstorm", "is this a real product". Also catches solution-first pitches ("I want to build X that does Y") and technology-first pitches ("use AI to...") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs.
As a process B 70/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 70/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 47 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3921 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (15 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 9 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 748: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 47 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.