mirror of
https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-10-26 15:05:04 +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>
44 lines
1.3 KiB
JSON
44 lines
1.3 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"skill_name": "doubt-driven-development",
|
|
"trigger": {
|
|
"positive": [
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "This change touches production auth, cross-examine every assumption before we proceed",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "I am not confident in this approach, adversarially review my reasoning in a fresh context",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "High-stakes migration tomorrow, stress the plan for hidden failure modes",
|
|
"top_k": 3
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"negative": [
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Format this file with prettier"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"prompt": "Write the changelog entry for the release",
|
|
"owner": "git-workflow-and-versioning"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"evals": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": 1,
|
|
"prompt": "Before running an irreversible data migration, subject the migration plan to adversarial review.",
|
|
"expected_output": "Claims extracted, doubts raised against each, reconciliation, and a go or stop verdict",
|
|
"files": [
|
|
"doubt-driven-development"
|
|
],
|
|
"expectations": [
|
|
"Non-trivial claims in the plan are extracted and challenged individually",
|
|
"At least one assumption is tested rather than accepted",
|
|
"The verdict distinguishes verified claims from surviving doubts"
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|