CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

harness-accept

Generate an Acceptance Demo HTML for non-engineer vibecoders right before ship/wait/reject decision. Reads back the acceptance_criteria that were stored as personal-preference.v1 by harness-plan-brief (joined by user_request_hash), then renders a single-file HTML showing each criterion as verified or unverified along with a ship/wait/reject recommendation. Use when the user asks for an acceptance review, wants to decide whether to ship a delivered task, or says: acceptance demo, accept demo, 受け入れ判断, 受入レビュー, ship/wait/reject 判定, 検収レビュー. Do NOT load for: implementation, code review, release work.

72

Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with explicit validation and failure handling, and it correctly offloads the blind-evaluator detail to a real reference file. Its main weakness is conciseness: pervasive internal phase/version tags and repeated cross-references add tokens that do not help Claude execute the skill.

Suggestions

Strip the internal version bookkeeping ('Phase 65.1.x', 'Phase 134.4', 'Phase 137.2', 'D43 Option α', 'Issue #84') from the body — these are repository history, not execution guidance, and they pad every section.

Consolidate the repeated pointers to references/blind-evaluator.md (currently called out in the schema field, Step 4.5, the recommendation section, and Related) into a single, clearly signaled reference to reduce redundancy.

Move the full acceptance-context.v1 schema block out of the body into the referenced schemas/ file, keeping only the field-level notes inline, to tighten the overview and deepen progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and procedural rather than explanatory, but runs ~300 lines carrying pervasive internal version tags ('Phase 65.1.x', 'Phase 134.4', 'Phase 137.2', 'D43 Option α', 'Issue #84') and repeated pointers to the same blind-evaluator reference that could be trimmed without losing actionable content.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: concrete bash (git rev-parse / sha256sum), exact MCP search parameters (tags, limit, strict_project), render-html.sh invocations with flags, exact evidence-prefix conventions ('pending_validations: ', 'artifact missing: '), and a complete schema block.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (user_request_hash match, pending_validations detection, TDD Red-log gate) and a 失敗時の挙動 failure table providing error-recovery feedback loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear step-based overview with a well-signaled one-level reference to references/blind-evaluator.md (verified present in the bundle) and a schema pointer; the fully inlined acceptance-context.v1 schema and recommendation algorithm are minor organization gaps that could live in separate files.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, and complete, answering both what and when with concrete bilingual trigger phrases and an explicit out-of-scope clause. It uses correct third-person voice throughout with no first/second-person drift.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Generate an Acceptance Demo HTML', 'Reads back the acceptance_criteria', 'renders a single-file HTML showing each criterion as verified or unverified along with a ship/wait/reject recommendation' — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's behavior.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (render single-file HTML with verified/unverified criteria and a ship/wait/reject recommendation) and when ('Use when the user asks for an acceptance review, wants to decide whether to ship a delivered task, or says: …') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms and bilingual variants: 'acceptance review', 'decide whether to ship a delivered task', 'acceptance demo, accept demo, 受け入れ判断, 受入レビュー, ship/wait/reject 判定, 検収レビュー'.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (acceptance review for non-engineer vibecoders) with an explicit exclusion clause — 'Do NOT load for: implementation, code review, release work' — minimizing conflict with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 4 missing, 4 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 15 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.