SKILLEMALL.ai
RU Sign in

AC gstack-review-stack

Use this skill when Codex needs gstack-style CEO/product, engineering, design, QA, release, or portfolio-shelf-space review. Trigger for requests like "use gstack", "CEO review", "engineering plan review", "design critique", "QA gate", "ship gate", "which products should we keep", or "decide what to publish/unpublish".

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Zakhar Pashkin v0.1.2 MIT-0 7 files body ≈ 799 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 2 d ago

As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

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
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
57/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
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: 7. 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 57/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 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
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 35 steps
    • 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 799 tokens

    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
    • +4No input/output examples
    • -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 8 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 320: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 9 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 35 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 4)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented

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

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a coherent review-helper skill; its only notable risk is a disclosed, user-triggered fallback to inspect a public GitHub repository for upstream reference material.
    LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 28 May 2026