battle-test · diff
git:20260929.1450937 to git:20261007.30cb771
7 added, 10 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: battle-test
description: "Deep audit of a skills directory against the Skill Creator standard. Produces a scored report and phased remediation plan."
metadata:
internal: true
triggers:
keywords:
- battle test
- workflow
---
# Battle Test Skill
> [!IMPORTANT]
> Deep audit of a skills directory against the Skill Creator standard. Produces a scored report and phased remediation plan.
Optional args: slug=<feature>, ticket=<id/url>, mode=interactive|autonomous|channel, channel=<id>, auto_continue=true|false, profile=business|hybrid|technical.
## Instructions
When the user asks to perform this workflow, execute the following steps:
# ⚔️ Battle Test Orchestrator
> **Goal**: Evaluate every `SKILL.md` in the target directory against `common-skill-creator`. Deliver a quantified health report and prioritized remediation plan.
---
## Step 1 — Target Discovery & Tech Stack
Identify the tech stack and all skill files.
```bash
# Count total skills per category
find . -name "SKILL.md" | sed 's|/[^/]*/SKILL.md||' | sort | uniq -c
```
---
## Step 2 — Frontmatter Audit (Breadth Scan)
Run scans to detect format and structure violations.
1. **Check for missing mandatory sections**: `grep -rL "triggers:\|priority:\|Anti-Patterns" <SKILLS>/`
2. **Check for broad glob triggers**: `grep -r "src/\*\*" <SKILLS>/`
3. **Check for length limits**:
`find . -name "SKILL.md" -exec awk 'END{if(NR>100) print FILENAME": "NR" lines"}' {} \;`
---
- ## Step 3 — Deep Audit & Scoring
+ ## Step 3 — Deep Audit & Evidence Classification
- Pick every P0 (CRITICAL) and a random sample of P1/P2 skills. Evaluate them against the **Grading Rubric** in:
- `<SKILLS>/common/common-skill-creator/references/rubric.md` when synced.
+ Evaluate skills against `<SKILLS>/common/common-skill-creator/references/rubric.md`:
- 1. **Trigger Accuracy**: File patterns + keywords?
- 2. **Format Quality**: `**No X**: Do Y.` anti-patterns?
- 3. **Verification**: Mandatory checklists?
- 4. **Token Efficiency**: Under 100 lines? Imperative mood?
+ 1. **Structural Checks**: Line count (≤100), frontmatter schema, surgical triggers.
+ 2. **Textual Utility**: Actionability, procedural clarity; verify NO answer-anchor padding.
+ 3. **Executable Outcomes**: Runnable verification commands, deterministic test/verifier pass.
+ 4. **Rule Retirement & Ablation**: Identify retirement candidates via repeated ablation; preserve safety controls until deterministic runtime replacements exist.
---
## Step 4 — Scored Report
- **Scoring Algorithm**: Start at 100 points for each category. Apply deductions for findings (🔴-15 / 🟠-8 / 🟡-3 / 🔵-1).
+ **Scoring Algorithm**: Start at 100 points for each category. Apply deductions for findings (🔴-15 / 🟠-8 / 🟡-3 / 🔵-1). Deduct for answer-anchor padding or bloated narrative.
### 📊 Report Format
Output the report using the **Battle Test Report** and **Phased Plan** templates in:
`<SKILLS>/common/common-skill-creator/references/rubric.md` when synced.
-
- ---
## Step 5 — Interactive Follow-up
1. "Generate a `task.md` for Phase 1 remediation?"
2. "Fix the worst offender in [category] now?"
3. "Deep-dive audit on a specific category (e.g., `security`)?"