SKILLEMALL.ai

AC code-workflow

4-stage code-change workflow: research → plan → user review → implement (TDD). Topics — steps (Step 0-3: resume + research + plan + review + branch), implement (Step 4: TDD + build + commit), pr (capture + PR with image/GIF/video). For issue implementation, tracked tasks, new features. TDD default (opt out --no-tdd). github-flow auto-companion on GitHub repos. Use when: "coding workflow", "research plan implement", "write plan", "plan md", "user review", "code plan", "code changes", "PR with screenshots", "pull request", "capture and PR".

ClawHub Agent Skills author: es6kr v0.9.1 MIT-0 10 files · 2 scripts body ≈ 1 937 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

As a process C 52/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

ProcedureGitHubSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
52/100
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: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "depends-on"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "triggers"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 52/100

    • 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. 12 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 24 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1937 tokens
    • 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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 10 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 544: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 13 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
    • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    This coding workflow is mostly coherent, but it needs Review because it can search cross-project memory/docs and publish or dispatch plans without tight per-task confirmation.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 10 Sept 2026