SKILLEMALL.ai

AC grade-a-pipeline

Map a codebase, decompose requested work into a dependency graph, and run a test-sandwiched multi-agent software pipeline with isolated worktrees, per-wave regression checks, adversarial review, and an explicit quality rubric. Use for substantial builds, fixes, or refactors that benefit from parallel implementation and conservative integration.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Antreas Antoniou v1.0.0 MIT-0 9 files body ≈ 2 442 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

Map a codebase, decompose requested work into a dependency graph, and run a test-sandwiched multi-agent software pipeline with isolated worktrees, per-wave…

As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

ProcedureInfrastructureSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
80
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
62/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
Result and completion w 14
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    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: 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 62/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (node) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 85Steps. 18 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2442 tokens
    • 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 (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

    • +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
    • -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 346: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill is a coherent multi-agent repository workflow, but it needs review because it grants broad local mutation authority and contains unsafe command/path handling and under-enforced guardrails.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 5 Sept 2026