SKILLEMALL.ai
RU Sign in

AC update-implementation-plan

Update an existing implementation plan file with new or update requirements to provide new features, refactoring existing code or upgrading packages, design, architecture or infrastructure.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 534 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 14 h ago

Update an existing implementation plan file with new or update requirements to provide new features, refactoring existing code or upgrading packages, design…

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

ProcedureSoftware developmenttype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 62, 71): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 85Steps. 25 steps, 1 vague phrases
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1534 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
  • low 10 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)
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 189: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 11 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.