SKILLEMALL.ai

AF review-tui

Comprehensive BubbleTea TUI code review for terminal applications. Use when reviewing charmbracelet/bubbletea, lipgloss, bubbles, or Wish SSH code; optionally reviews each area concurrently.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Kevin Anderson v1.0.2 MIT-0 2 files body ≈ 2 142 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

As a process F 54/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md, ../go-code-review/SKILL.md, ../bubbletea-code-review/SKILL.md

AnalyzerSoftware developmentInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
54/100
Will not run
References files that are not bundled: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md, ../go-code-review/SKILL.md, ../bubbletea-code-review/SKILL.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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 · 0

✓ No critical or high findings

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

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../go-code-review/SKILL.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../bubbletea-code-review/SKILL.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../go-testing-code-review/SKILL.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../wish-ssh-code-review/SKILL.md

Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md, ../go-code-review/SKILL.md, ../bubbletea-code-review/SKILL.md
  • 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: ../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md, ../go-code-review/SKILL.md, ../bubbletea-code-review/SKILL.md
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 100Steps. 65 steps
  • 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2142 tokens
  • low 13 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)
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 190: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 22 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 65 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.

External checks

ClawHub: clean
The skill bundle is coherent and disclosed, with high-impact maintainer and Convex workflows that are scoped to their stated purposes.
LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 1 Jun 2026