accint-solve

Route a goal through acc's scored-memory loop via acc_act(runtime="solve"); deliberate any returned brain_frame and submit via continue.

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/antigravity-accint-solve/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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 a tight, well-sequenced routing guide with concrete MCP verbs and clear branching between final results and brain_frames. Its main gaps are the absence of a worked example with real values (placeholders like "..." remain), a vague final outcome step, and boilerplate Limitations/Example sections that pad without informing.

Suggestions

Add a worked example showing a sample brain_frame and a completed continue call with a realistic proposal_text ending in "PREDICT: 0.75 <why>".

Specify the parameters for the outcome call in step 6 (e.g., commitment id, result status) instead of leaving "...".

Replace the generic Limitations boilerplate and the redundant Example section with skill-specific caveats (e.g., what to do if a submit_token expires or a frame is malformed).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core workflow (steps 1–6) is lean and assumes Claude's competence — "Routing sugar over the two MCP verbs — no logic lives here" wastes nothing. Minor trimmable padding exists: the "When to Use" section repeats the frontmatter description verbatim, the Example section restates it a third time with no added content, and the Limitations section is generic boilerplate not specific to this skill. This keeps it below anchor 5 but above anchor 3 since the instructional content itself is efficient.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete API calls are given ("acc_act(runtime=\"solve\", input=\"<the goal>\")" and the continue call with frame_id/submit_token/proposal_text), but the continue call uses "..." placeholders and there is no worked example showing an actual brain_frame, a filled-in proposal_text, or a final result. This matches anchor 3 (concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details) rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable standard.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The six steps give a clear, correctly ordered sequence with an explicit branch ("If the result is final... If the result is a brain_frame...") and guardrails ("Never leave a received frame unresolved"). It is below anchor 5 because step 6 is vague ("acc_act(runtime=\"outcome\", ...)" with no parameters) and there is no guidance for error/edge cases such as an invalid submit_token; no destructive or batch operations apply, so no cap is triggered.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no external references are needed, so per the simple-skill guidance it can score high on organization alone. It falls short of 5 because the numbered workflow floats without its own section header and the Example section adds no navigational or instructional value.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 and unambiguous within the acc ecosystem, with a clearly defined niche and concrete API-level actions. Its main weaknesses are the complete absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and heavy reliance on system jargon rather than natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., "Use when the user asks to run a goal through acc's solve runtime or mentions accint-solve."

Include natural-language synonyms users might say (e.g., "acc solve", "route this task through acc") alongside the API jargon.

Briefly mention commitment closure (the outcome step) so the description covers the full loop the body describes.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names concrete actions within its niche — "Route a goal through acc's scored-memory loop via acc_act(runtime=\"solve\")", "deliberate any returned brain_frame", "submit via continue" — including the exact API call. It falls short of anchor 5 because coverage is incomplete (e.g., closing commitments via the outcome runtime is only in the body), and below-anchor phrasing like "scored-memory loop" leans on jargon rather than fully unpacked actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is fairly concrete (route a goal, deliberate frames, submit via continue), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the "what" is clear and multi-part, not vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords exist ("solve", "goal", "acc", "submit") and would be said by users of this ecosystem, but the phrasing is dominated by system jargon ("scored-memory loop", "brain_frame", "runtime") with no natural-language variations or synonyms. It is above anchor 2 because the terms are domain-relevant rather than generic, but below anchor 4 because common natural phrasings a user would actually say are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is distinct — the named MCP verbs ("acc_act(runtime=\"solve\")", "brain_frame", "submit_token") make false triggers unlikely. It is below anchor 5 only because the description also covers the continue and outcome runtimes, creating minor overlap risk with sibling skills in the same plugin.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: boisenoise/skills-collections
Path: skills/antigravity-accint-solve/SKILL.md
Commit: 7390864

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.