AC paper-code-joint-analysis
Jointly analyze a research paper and its open-source implementation. Use when a user wants to understand a paper through code, map theory/formulas/algorithms/experiments to real classes and methods, identify implementation details not disclosed in the paper, produce reproducibility commands and gaps, build explanatory diagrams or a static reader, or validate that an analysis covers both the paper and repository.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenassets/reader-template/vendor/katex/katex.min.js:1High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (detector / deny-list definition)!function(e,t){"object"==typeof exports&&"object"==typeof module?module.exports=t():"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define([],t):"object"==typeof exports?exports.katex=t():e.katex=t()}("undefinedetector
Files scanned: 21. 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 60/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4029 tokens
- 100Steps. 86 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 11 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 415: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 86 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
- +3All 5 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.