agentleFS
lilangMaxlilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios/.claude/skills/skill-test/SKILL.md

skill-test

Skill8 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Validate skill files for structural compliance and behavioral correctness. Three modes: static (linter), spec (behavioral), audit (coverage report).

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

38 rules. 0 are common, 17 are distinctive, and 21 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 17

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 21

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If argument is missing or unrecognized, output usage and stop.

    line 37
  2. Distinctive:

    FAIL: if any are absent.

    line 53
  3. Distinctive:

    FAIL: if fewer than 2 phase-like headings are found.

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    FAIL: if none are present.

    line 67
  5. Distinctive:

    WARN: if absent (some read-only skills legitimately skip this).

    line 75
  6. Very specific:

    FAIL: if allowed-tools includes Write or Edit but no ask-before-write language is found.

    line 76
  7. Very specific:

    If frontmatter contains context: fork, the skill should have ≥5 phase headings (## level or numbered Phase N headers).

    line 87
  8. Very specific:

    WARN: if context: fork is set but fewer than 5 phases found.

    line 91
  9. Very specific:

    WARN: if hint is "" or if documented modes don't match hint.

    line 98
  10. Very specific:

    Look up the spec path from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml — use the spec: field for the matching skill entry.

    line 142
  11. Distinctive:

    If either is missing:

    line 145
  12. Distinctive:

    Read the skill file and test spec file completely.

    line 153
  13. Distinctive:

    Read the Fixture description (assumed state of project files)

    line 159
  14. Distinctive:

    Read the Expected behavior steps

    line 160
  15. Distinctive:

    Read each Assertion checkbox

    line 161
  16. Distinctive:

    Check whether the skill requires "May I write" before file writes

    line 173
  17. Distinctive:

    Check whether the skill presents findings before requesting approval

    line 174
  18. Distinctive:

    Check whether the skill ends with a recommended next step

    line 175
  19. Distinctive:

    Check whether the skill avoids auto-creating files without approval

    line 176
  20. Very specific:

    Write results file to CCGS Skill Testing Framework/results/

    line 211
  21. Very specific:

    Update the skill's entry in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml:

    line 212
  22. Very specific:

    Look up category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.

    line 223
  23. Very specific:

    If skill not found: "Skill '[name]' not found." If no category: field: "No category assigned for '[name]' in catalog.yaml.

    line 225
  24. Very specific:

    If no category: field: "No category assigned for '[name]' in catalog.yaml.

    line 226
  25. Very specific:

    Add category: [name] to the skill entry first."

    line 227
  26. Very specific:

    Read the skill's SKILL.md fully.

    line 240
  27. Distinctive:

    Check whether the skill's written instructions clearly satisfy the criterion

    line 245
  28. Very specific:

    Read CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.

    line 278
  29. Very specific:

    Check if a spec file exists (use the spec: path from catalog, or glob CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/*/[name].md)

    line 292
  30. Very specific:

    Look up last_static, last_static_result, last_spec, last_spec_result, last_category, last_category_result, category from catalog (or mark …

    line 293
  31. Very specific:

    Look up last_spec, last_spec_result, category from catalog

    line 302
  32. Distinctive:

    No file writes in audit mode.

    line 335
  33. Distinctive:

    After any mode completes, offer contextual follow-up:

    line 345
  34. Very specific:

    After static [name]: "Run /skill-test spec [name] to validate behavioral correctness if a test spec exists."

    line 347
  35. Very specific:

    After static all with failures: "Address NON-COMPLIANT skills first.

    line 349
  36. Very specific:

    After spec [name] PASS: "Update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to record this pass date.

    line 351
  37. Very specific:

    After spec [name] FAIL: "Review the failing assertions and update the skill or the test spec to resolve the mismatch."

    line 353
  38. Very specific:

    After audit: "Start with the critical-priority gaps.

    line 355

“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

Validates .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md files for structural compliance and behavioral correctness. No external dependencies — runs entirely within the existing skill/hook/template architecture.

Four modes:

ModeCommandPurposeToken Cost
static/skill-test static [name|all]Structural linter — 7 compliance checks per skillLow (~1k/skill)
spec/skill-test spec [name]Behavioral verifier — evaluates assertions in test specMedium (~5k/skill)
category/skill-test category [name|all]Category rubric — checks skill against its category-specific metricsLow (~2k/skill)
audit/skill-test auditCoverage report — skills, agent specs, last test datesLow (~3k total)

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Determine mode from the first argument:

  • static [name] → run 7 structural checks on one skill
  • static all → run 7 structural checks on all skills (Glob .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md)
  • spec [name] → read skill + test spec, evaluate assertions
  • category [name] → run category-specific rubric from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/quality-rubric.md
  • category all → run category rubric for every skill that has a category: in catalog
  • audit (or no argument) → read catalog, list all skills and agents, show coverage

If argument is missing or unrecognized, output usage and stop.


Phase 2A: Static Mode — Structural Linter

For each skill being tested, read its SKILL.md fully and run all 7 checks:

Check 1 — Required Frontmatter Fields

The file must contain all of these in the YAML frontmatter block:

  • name:
  • description:
  • argument-hint:
  • user-invocable:
  • allowed-tools:

FAIL if any are absent.

Check 2 — Multiple Phases

The skill must have ≥2 numbered phase headings. Look for patterns like:

  • ## Phase N or ## Phase N:
  • ## N. (numbered top-level sections)
  • At least 2 distinct ## headings if phases aren't explicitly numbered

FAIL if fewer than 2 phase-like headings are found.

Check 3 — Verdict Keywords

The skill must contain at least one of: PASS, FAIL, CONCERNS, APPROVED, BLOCKED, COMPLETE, READY, COMPLIANT, NON-COMPLIANT

FAIL if none are present.

Check 4 — Collaborative Protocol Language

The skill must contain ask-before-write language. Look for:

  • "May I write" (canonical form)
  • "before writing" or "approval" near file-write instructions
  • "ask" + "write" in close proximity (within same section)

WARN if absent (some read-only skills legitimately skip this). FAIL if allowed-tools includes Write or Edit but no ask-before-write language is found.

Check 5 — Next-Step Handoff

The skill must end with a recommended next action or follow-up path. Look for:

  • A final section mentioning another skill (e.g., /story-done, /gate-check)
  • "Recommended next" or "next step" phrasing
  • A "Follow-Up" or "After this" section

WARN if absent.

Check 6 — Fork Context Complexity

If frontmatter contains context: fork, the skill should have ≥5 phase headings (## level or numbered Phase N headers). Fork context is for complex multi-phase skills; simple skills should not use it.

WARN if context: fork is set but fewer than 5 phases found.

Check 7 — Argument Hint Plausibility

argument-hint must be non-empty. If the skill body mentions multiple modes (e.g., "Mode A | Mode B"), the hint should reflect them. Cross-reference the hint against the first phase's "Parse Arguments" section.

WARN if hint is "" or if documented modes don't match hint.


Static Mode Output Format

For a single skill:

=== Skill Static Check: /[name] ===

Check 1 — Frontmatter Fields:    PASS
Check 2 — Multiple Phases:       PASS (7 phases found)
Check 3 — Verdict Keywords:      PASS (PASS, FAIL, CONCERNS)
Check 4 — Collaborative Protocol: PASS ("May I write" found)
Check 5 — Next-Step Handoff:     WARN (no follow-up section found)
Check 6 — Fork Context Complexity: PASS (8 phases, context: fork set)
Check 7 — Argument Hint:         PASS

Verdict: WARNINGS (1 warning, 0 failures)
Recommended: Add a "Follow-Up Actions" section at the end of the skill.

For static all, produce a summary table then list any non-compliant skills:

=== Skill Static Check: All 52 Skills ===

Skill                  | Result       | Issues
-----------------------|--------------|-------
gate-check             | COMPLIANT    |
design-review          | COMPLIANT    |
story-readiness        | WARNINGS     | Check 5: no handoff
...

Summary: 48 COMPLIANT, 3 WARNINGS, 1 NON-COMPLIANT
Aggregate Verdict: N WARNINGS / N FAILURES

Phase 2B: Spec Mode — Behavioral Verifier

Step 1 — Locate Files

Find skill at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md. Look up the spec path from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml — use the spec: field for the matching skill entry.

If either is missing:

  • Missing skill: "Skill '[name]' not found in .claude/skills/."
  • Missing spec path in catalog: "No spec path set for '[name]' in catalog.yaml."
  • Spec file not found at path: "Spec file missing at [path]. Run /skill-test audit to see coverage gaps."

Step 2 — Read Both Files

Read the skill file and test spec file completely.

Step 3 — Evaluate Assertions

For each Test Case in the spec:

  1. Read the Fixture description (assumed state of project files)
  2. Read the Expected behavior steps
  3. Read each Assertion checkbox

For each assertion, evaluate whether the skill's written instructions, if followed correctly given the fixture state, would satisfy it. This is a Claude-evaluated reasoning check, not code execution.

Mark each assertion:

  • PASS — skill instructions clearly satisfy this assertion
  • PARTIAL — skill instructions partially address it, but with ambiguity
  • FAIL — skill instructions would NOT satisfy this assertion given the fixture

For Protocol Compliance assertions (always present):

  • Check whether the skill requires "May I write" before file writes
  • Check whether the skill presents findings before requesting approval
  • Check whether the skill ends with a recommended next step
  • Check whether the skill avoids auto-creating files without approval

Step 4 — Build Report

=== Skill Spec Test: /[name] ===
Date: [date]
Spec: CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/[category]/[name].md

Case 1: [Happy Path — name]
  Fixture: [summary]
  Assertions:
    [PASS] [assertion text]
    [FAIL] [assertion text]
       Reason: The skill's Phase 3 says "..." but the fixture state means "..."
  Case Verdict: FAIL

Case 2: [Edge Case — name]
  ...
  Case Verdict: PASS

Protocol Compliance:
  [PASS] Uses "May I write" before file writes
  [PASS] Presents findings before asking approval
  [WARN] No explicit next-step handoff at end

Overall Verdict: FAIL (1 case failed, 1 warning)

Step 5 — Offer to Write Results

"May I write these results to CCGS Skill Testing Framework/results/skill-test-spec-[name]-[date].md and update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml?"

If yes:

  • Write results file to CCGS Skill Testing Framework/results/
  • Update the skill's entry in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml:
    • last_spec: [date]
    • last_spec_result: PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL

Phase 2D: Category Mode — Rubric Evaluation

Step 1 — Locate Skill and Category

Find skill at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md. Look up category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.

If skill not found: "Skill '[name]' not found." If no category: field: "No category assigned for '[name]' in catalog.yaml. Add category: [name] to the skill entry first."

For category all: collect all skills with a category: field and process each. category: utility skills are evaluated against U1 (static checks pass) and U2 (gate mode correct if applicable) only — skip to the static mode for U1.

Step 2 — Read Rubric Section

Read CCGS Skill Testing Framework/quality-rubric.md. Extract the section matching the skill's category (e.g., ### gate, ### team).

Step 3 — Read Skill

Read the skill's SKILL.md fully.

Step 4 — Evaluate Rubric Metrics

For each metric in the category's rubric table:

  1. Check whether the skill's written instructions clearly satisfy the criterion
  2. Mark PASS, FAIL, or WARN
  3. For FAIL/WARN, identify the exact gap in the skill text (quote the relevant section or note its absence)

Step 5 — Output Report

=== Skill Category Check: /[name] ([category]) ===

Metric G1 — Review mode read:      PASS
Metric G2 — Full mode directors:   FAIL
  Gap: Phase 3 spawns only CD-PHASE-GATE; TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE absent
Metric G3 — Lean mode: PHASE-GATE only: PASS
Metric G4 — Solo mode: no directors:    PASS
Metric G5 — No auto-advance:       PASS

Verdict: FAIL (1 failure, 0 warnings)
Fix: Add TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, and AD-PHASE-GATE to the full-mode director
     panel in Phase 3.

Step 6 — Offer to Update Catalog

"May I update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to record this category check (last_category, last_category_result) for [name]?"


Phase 2C: Audit Mode — Coverage Report

Step 1 — Read Catalog

Read CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml. If missing, note that catalog doesn't exist yet (first-run state).

Step 2 — Enumerate All Skills and Agents

Glob .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md to get the complete list of skills. Extract skill name from each path (directory name).

Also read the agents: section from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to get the complete list of agents.

Step 3 — Build Skill Coverage Table

For each skill:

  • Check if a spec file exists (use the spec: path from catalog, or glob CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/*/[name].md)
  • Look up last_static, last_static_result, last_spec, last_spec_result, last_category, last_category_result, category from catalog (or mark as "never" / "—" if not in catalog)
  • Priority comes from catalog priority: field (critical/high/medium/low)

Step 3b — Build Agent Coverage Table

For each agent in catalog's agents: section:

  • Check if a spec file exists (use the spec: path from catalog, or glob CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/*/[name].md)
  • Look up last_spec, last_spec_result, category from catalog

Step 4 — Output Report

=== Skill Test Coverage Audit ===
Date: [date]

SKILLS (72 total)
Specs written: 72 (100%) | Never static tested: 72 | Never category tested: 72

Skill                  | Cat      | Has Spec | Last Static | S.Result | Last Cat | C.Result | Priority
-----------------------|----------|----------|-------------|----------|----------|----------|----------
gate-check             | gate     | YES      | never       | —        | never    | —        | critical
design-review          | review   | YES      | never       | —        | never    | —        | critical
...

AGENTS (49 total)
Agent specs written: 49 (100%)

Agent                  | Category   | Has Spec | Last Spec   | Result
-----------------------|------------|----------|-------------|--------
creative-director      | director   | YES      | never       | —
technical-director     | director   | YES      | never       | —
...

Top 5 Priority Gaps (skills with no spec, critical/high priority):
(none if all specs are written)

Skill coverage:  72/72 specs (100%)
Agent coverage:  49/49 specs (100%)

No file writes in audit mode.

Offer: "Would you like to run /skill-test static all to check structural compliance across all skills? /skill-test category all to run category rubric checks? Or /skill-test spec [name] to run a specific behavioral test?"


Phase 3: Recommended Next Steps

After any mode completes, offer contextual follow-up:

  • After static [name]: "Run /skill-test spec [name] to validate behavioral correctness if a test spec exists."
  • After static all with failures: "Address NON-COMPLIANT skills first. Run /skill-test static [name] individually for detailed remediation guidance."
  • After spec [name] PASS: "Update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to record this pass date. Consider running /skill-test audit to find the next spec gap."
  • After spec [name] FAIL: "Review the failing assertions and update the skill or the test spec to resolve the mismatch."
  • After audit: "Start with the critical-priority gaps. Use the spec template at CCGS Skill Testing Framework/templates/skill-test-spec.md to create new specs."

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.

Reviews can't be read right now.

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.