agentleFS
gonimargonimar/claude-web-studio/skills/skill-test/SKILL.md

skill-test

Skill4 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Validates Web Studio skills and agents: `static` (structural linter), `spec` (behavioural spec evaluation), `category` (rubric metrics), `agent` (agent spec evaluation), `audit` (coverage report), using the testing framework (catalog.yaml, rubric, specs) from the kit or a project copy. Run after editing a skill or agent, for 'lint the skills', 'test skill X', 'coverage of the kit'.

14 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use soak-test, team-live-ops and 7 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    soak-test

    Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    team-live-ops

    Orchestrate the live-ops team for post-launch content planning: coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer, and narrative-director to design and plan a season, event, or live content update.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • +7 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read the framework's catalog.yaml (categories, spec paths, dates).

    line 35
  2. Very specific:

    Read SKILL.md and the spec at the catalog's spec: path (skills/<category>/<name>.md inside the framework).

    line 51
  3. Very specific:

    After the "write" answer: touch .claude/.write-consent (rule 7), then write.

    line 55

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 13 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Skill Test

Reply in the project conversation language (CLAUDE.md → Language); code, identifiers, paths and commit messages stay in English.

Tests the studio's own skills and agents (not the project).

  • Framework directory — the first of these that contains catalog.yaml: ./testing (kit repository), ./web-studio-testing (project copy), the plugin root's testing/ (from the session-start "Plugin root:" line or claude plugin list --json). Spec paths come from the catalog's spec: field, never guessed; outside the kit repository the testing/ prefix of that path stands for the framework directory.
  • Sources — skills: ./skills/*/SKILL.md (kit repo), .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md (copy mode) or the plugin root's skills/; agents likewise (agents/*.md, .claude/agents/*.md).
  • Catalog gates are recorded (rule 7): before each "May I update catalog.yaml…?" / "May I write the result…?" question below, <hooks>session-state.sh set Gate "/skill-test Phase 2X: update catalog?" (./hooks/ in the kit repository; otherwise <hooks> is .claude/hooks/ in copy mode and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/ in plugin mode), cleared after the answer with <hooks>session-state.sh set Gate "—" — one sentence per gate, so a session that resumes with the question open continues here.
ModeWhatCost
static [name|all]9 structural checks of SKILL.mdlow
spec [name]evaluate a skill against its behavioural specmedium
category [name|all]category rubric metricslow
agent [name|all]agent static checks + agent spec evaluationmedium
auditcoverage: who has a spec, last tested, resultlow

Phase 1: Arguments

  1. Parse mode and target; unknown mode → print the usage (the table above) and stop.
  2. Find the framework directory. None found and the mode is not static → say that only static works without a framework, name the directory it looks for, and stop without writing anything.
  3. Read the framework's catalog.yaml (categories, spec paths, dates). static without a framework skips this step.

Phase 2A: static — 9 SKILL.md checks

  1. Frontmatter starts on line 1 with ---; fields name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools — FAIL if missing.
  2. ≥ 2 phases (## Phase N or ≥ 2 ##) — FAIL.
  3. A verdict word (PASS|FAIL|CONCERNS|APPROVED|ACCEPTED|PROPOSED|NEEDS REVISION|NEEDS CHANGES|BLOCKED|COMPLETE|READY|DONE|UPDATED|CLEAN|RELEASED|DEPLOYED|HARDENED|PLAYABLE|COMPLIANT|INITIALISED|RESOLVED|MITIGATED|WITHIN BUDGET|OVER BUDGET|ON TRACK|AT RISK|OFF TRACK|FIXED|IMPROVED|PLANNED) — FAIL.
  4. Ask-before-write: May I write (or an explicit gate sentence) when Write|Edit is in allowed-tools — FAIL; otherwise WARN. A gate that is not an AskUserQuestion with alternatives (coordination-rules, rule 7) — WARN. The gate must be followed by touch .claude/.write-consent (the consent-guard hook reads that marker; a skill that writes without touching it warns on every write) — a write gate with no consent touch after it — WARN.
  5. A "Next step" at the end — WARN; one that is not offered as an AskUserQuestion with alternatives — WARN.
  6. A reference/template/rules link (stack-reference/, templates/, rules/) for authoring/analysis skills — WARN.
  7. argument-hint non-empty and consistent with the argument-parsing phase — WARN.
  8. Language: body in English, no project-specific or personal references (hostnames, names, private repo names) — WARN.
  9. A "Reply in the project conversation language" line, or a pointer to coordination-rules.md § Skill conventions (which defines it once) — the skill honours CLAUDE.md → Language regardless of its own English text — WARN. Output: a table of checks, COMPLIANT | WARNINGS | NON-COMPLIANT; for all — a summary table. Catalog record (only with a framework — static without one has no catalog and writes nothing): the catalog carries last_static / last_static_result per skill for exactly this run. After the table, record the gate (<hooks>session-state.sh set Gate "/skill-test Phase 2A: update catalog?"), then "May I update catalog.yaml (last_static = today, last_static_result = the verdict, for N skill(s))?" as one AskUserQuestion: update the catalog (Recommended) · do not write; clear the gate after the answer. After the "update" answer: touch .claude/.write-consent (rule 7), then edit only those two fields of the tested rows; nothing else in the catalog changes. audit reads the fields back.

Phase 2B: spec — behavioural evaluation

  1. Read SKILL.md and the spec at the catalog's spec: path (skills/<category>/<name>.md inside the framework).
  2. For every case and assertion, find the instructions in the skill text that satisfy it: PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL with a quoted line.
  3. Totals per case and protocol.
  4. Record the gate (<hooks>session-state.sh set Gate "/skill-test Phase 2B: write results and catalog?"), then "May I write the result to results/<name>-<date>.md and update catalog.yaml?" as one AskUserQuestion: results and catalog (Recommended) · results only · do not write; clear the gate after the answer.
  5. After the "write" answer: touch .claude/.write-consent (rule 7), then write.

Phase 2C: category — rubric

The category section of quality-rubric.md → each metric PASS/WARN/FAIL with justification; the category's verdict is COMPLIANT | WARNINGS | NON-COMPLIANT from the worst metric. Catalog record, as in 2A: record the gate (<hooks>session-state.sh set Gate "/skill-test Phase 2C: update catalog?"), then "May I update catalog.yaml (last_category = today, last_category_result = the verdict, for the N skill(s) of the category)?" — one AskUserQuestion: update the catalog (Recommended) · do not write; clear the gate after the answer. After the "update" answer: touch .claude/.write-consent (rule 7), then edit only those two fields.

Phase 2D: agent

Static: the agent file exists, name/description/model/tools, the collaboration protocol block, a stack-reference link, domain and "never"/escalation described. Then evaluate against the agent's spec at the catalog's spec: path (agents/<tier>/<name>.md, 5 cases) as in 2B, including its write gate. all runs every catalogued agent and ends with a summary table; an agent without a spec is listed as such, never skipped silently.

Phase 2E: audit

A table of all skills/agents: category/tier, spec present?, last_static/spec/category (date, result), priority. Uncatalogued files listed separately.

Verdict: COMPLIANT | WARNINGS | NON-COMPLIANT. Next step — one AskUserQuestion: /skill-improve <name> for failures (Recommended) · /skill-test spec <name> next · stop here.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.