mirror of
https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-10-26 23:15:04 +00:00
Zlobin-KandClaude Sonnet 5
6ff91e06e8
Six negative-trigger prompts across six case files declared no `owner`, so per evals/README.md and scripts/run-evals.js they could only pass vacuously (skip the pairwise routing assertion) instead of asserting that the correct skill actually outranks the tested one. Added owner for the prompts where a real, unambiguous owner exists and verified against scripts/run-evals.js that it outranks the tested skill with a non-zero score: - code-simplification: "Add a feature flag system to the app" -> incremental-implementation - deprecation-and-migration: "Add dark mode to the settings page" -> frontend-ui-engineering - doubt-driven-development: "Write the changelog entry for the release" -> git-workflow-and-versioning - frontend-ui-engineering: "Tag and publish the release" -> git-workflow-and-versioning - planning-and-task-breakdown: "Encode the output so it is safe against XSS" -> security-and-hardening - using-agent-skills: "Make the modal accessible for keyboard users" -> frontend-ui-engineering Left four other owner-less negatives untouched (doubt-driven-development's "Format this file with prettier", git-workflow-and-versioning's "Add a loading spinner to the submit button", observability-and-instrumentation's "Draft the PRD for the referral program", and shipping-and-launch's "Why is this function so slow on large inputs?") because no skill scores above zero against them under the current TF-IDF scorer, so declaring an owner there would either fail CI or force a misleading pick. Verified: node scripts/run-evals.js still passes (127 checks, 0 errors, 86% rank-1) and node scripts/validate-commands.js passes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
46 lines
1.3 KiB
JSON
46 lines
1.3 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"skill_name": "code-simplification",
|
|
"trigger": {
|
|
"positive": [
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "This function works but it is way too clever, simplify it without changing behavior",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Reduce the complexity of this module so juniors can maintain it",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Clean up this working code, it has grown hard to follow",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"negative": [
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Add a feature flag system to the app",
|
|
"owner": "incremental-implementation"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Diagnose why the build broke overnight",
|
|
"owner": "debugging-and-error-recovery"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"evals": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 1,
|
|
"prompt": "Simplify the provided 80-line function that parses config files, preserving exact behavior.",
|
|
"expected_output": "A simpler implementation with identical behavior and a summary of what was removed and why",
|
|
"files": [
|
|
"code-simplification"
|
|
],
|
|
"expectations": [
|
|
"Behavior is preserved (tests unchanged and passing, or equivalence argued concretely)",
|
|
"Complexity is reduced rather than relocated",
|
|
"The response explains what was removed and why it was safe",
|
|
"No new features are added during the simplification"
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|