skill-test

name	skill-test
description	Validate skill files for structural compliance and behavioral correctness. Three modes: static (linter), spec (behavioral), audit (coverage report).
argument-hint	static [skill-name | all] | spec [skill-name] | category [skill-name | all] | audit
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, Write

User Guide

• When to use: Validate skill files for structural compliance and behavioral correctness. Three modes: static (linter), spec (behavioral), audit (coverage report).
• Inputs: Command arguments: /skill-test static [skill-name | all] | spec [skill-name] | category [skill-name | all] | audit; project artifacts referenced below; user decisions and approvals before writes.
• Outputs: Static/spec/category/audit reports. Approved writes go to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/ and update memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml.
• Memory-bank writes: Reads canonical test assets from skill_testing/; with approval writes T3 test evidence under memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/.
• Next steps: Follow the workflow hand-off or next-step guidance below; recommendations do not auto-run and require explicit user command/approval.

Phase 0: Domain Routing

Detect the skill domain before testing:

• [Game] verify game examples, player/gameplay/engine language, playtest references, and game CDD paths remain valid.
• [Product] verify product examples, API/CLI/web/data language, product-concept paths, stack references, and product evidence paths remain valid.
• [Both] check that dual-domain skills preserve both branches and do not hide game-only content from game workflows.

A passing skill test must not require deleting game-specific examples.

Skill Test

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

Four modes:

Mode	Command	Purpose	Token Cost
static	/skill-test static [name|all]	Structural linter — 7 compliance checks per skill	Low (~1k/skill)
spec	/skill-test spec [name]	Behavioral verifier — evaluates assertions in test spec	Medium (~5k/skill)
category	/skill-test category [name|all]	Category rubric — checks skill against its category-specific metrics	Low (~2k/skill)
audit	/skill-test audit	Coverage report — skills, agent specs, last test dates	Low (~3k total)

---

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Determine mode from the first argument:

• static [name] → run 8 structural/parity checks on one skill
• static all → run 8 structural/parity checks on all skills (Glob skills/*/SKILL.md)
• spec [name] → read skill + test spec, evaluate assertions
• category [name] → run category-specific rubric from skill_testing/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 8 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.

Check 8 — Dual-Domain Parity

If the skill advertises Product support in frontmatter or Phase 0, it must also contain Product-specific implementation guidance beyond the first 50 lines. Look for at least two of:

• Product context reads (product-concept.md, Product CDDs, docs/reference/<stack>/, language specialist, API/CLI/UI/data docs)
• Product-specific steps/checks/templates
• Product output report/spec format
• Product next-step handoff

WARN if Product appears only near the top of the file. FAIL if the skill claims Product support but the body remains game-only and would route a Product project through engine/player/playtest/HUD-only behavior.

Also check that game content is preserved:

• Game markers, player/gameplay/engine examples, playtest references, or game CDD paths must not be removed when Product support is added.
• A passing dual-domain skill may include game-only sections, as long as Product sections are present beside them for Product workflows.

---

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 74 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

Static Mode Optional Evidence Write

Static mode displays results by default. If the user wants to preserve the run, ask:

"May I write this static check to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/static/skill-test-static-[name|all]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md and update memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml?"

If yes:

• Write the static result file under memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/static/
• Update each affected skill entry in coverage-index.yaml:
  • last_static: [date]
  • last_static_result: PASS|WARN|FAIL
  • latest_result_path: memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/static/skill-test-static-[name|all]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

---

Phase 2B: Spec Mode — Behavioral Verifier

Step 1 — Locate Files

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

If either is missing:

• Missing skill: "Skill '[name]' not found in 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 Codex-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: skill_testing/specs/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 4b — Dual-Domain Spec Assertions

For any spec that covers a dual-domain skill, evaluate both branches:

• Game fixture: design/cdd/game-concept.md exists. The skill should preserve game terminology, paths, examples, and next steps.
• Product fixture: design/cdd/product-concept.md exists. The skill should use Product terminology, paths, examples, and next steps.

Mark assertions:

• PASS — both branches are clearly supported.
• PARTIAL — Product is mentioned but lacks equivalent depth.
• FAIL — Product fixture would still execute only game-specific behavior, or the Product change removed game content.

Step 5 — Offer to Write Results

"May I write these results to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/spec/skill-test-spec-[name]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md and update memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml?"

If yes:

• Write the result file to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/spec/
• Update the skill's entry in memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml:
  • last_spec: [date]
  • last_spec_result: PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL
  • latest_result_path: memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/spec/skill-test-spec-[name]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

---

Phase 2D: Category Mode — Rubric Evaluation

Step 1 — Locate Skill and Category

Find skill at skills/[name]/SKILL.md. Look up category: field in skill_testing/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 skill_testing/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 Write Results

"May I write this category check to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/category/skill-test-category-[name]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md and update memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml (last_category, last_category_result, latest_result_path) for [name]?"

---

Phase 2D: Audit Mode — Coverage Report

Step 1 — Read Catalog

Read skill_testing/catalog.yaml for the registry and memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.yaml for test history. If either is missing, note the missing file and recommend running /constitute to initialize the memory-bank testing templates.

Step 2 — Enumerate All Skills and Agents

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

Also read the agents: section from skill_testing/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 skill_testing/specs/skills/*/[name].md)
• Look up last_static, last_static_result, last_spec, last_spec_result, last_category, last_category_result, and latest_result_path from coverage-index.yaml (or mark as "never" / "—" if not in coverage)
• Look up category from 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 skill_testing/specs/agents/*/[name].md)
• Look up last_spec, last_spec_result, and latest_result_path from coverage-index.yaml
• Look up tier from catalog

Step 4 — Output Report

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

SKILLS (74 total)
Specs written: 74 (100%) | Never static tested: 74 | Never category tested: 74

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

AGENTS (53 total)
Agent specs written: 53 (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:  74/74 specs (100%)
Agent coverage:  53/53 specs (100%)

Audit mode is read-only by default.

Optional write: ask "May I write this audit report to memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/results/audit/skill-test-audit-[YYYY-MM-DD].md?" Only write the audit report if the user approves.

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 memory_bank/t3_archive/skill_testing/coverage-index.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 skill_testing/templates/skill-test-spec.md to create new specs."