SKILLEMALL.ai
RU Sign in

AC git-workspace-review

Verifies workspace state and staged changes as a read-only preflight. Use before commits or PRs to confirm staged set is clean and correct

ClawHub Agent Skills author: athola v1.9.19 MIT-0 3 files body ≈ 801 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 2 d ago

As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, consistency

AnalyzerSoftware developmentInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
91/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
77
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
55/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
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: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "source"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "source_plugin"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (git-workspace-review) differs from the folder (nm-sanctum-git-workspace-review)
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Steps. 8 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 801 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)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 138: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 14 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 77.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill is a git review helper, but it claims to be read-only while instructing agents to change staging state and potentially edit files.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 26 Aug 2026