Victor KuznetsovandClaude Opus 5 09960676fc Guard the skill against the CLI, and measure it against a model ...

The packaging tests a catalog runs say nothing about content, so the skill's
prose drifted from the CLI exactly the way an unguarded seam does. These tests
read the live Click tree: mark keys, flag choices, batch modes, pipeline
profiles, vendor cohorts, exit codes and extras must match what the skill says.

Guard the SET, not the instances. Per-flag comparisons only check what the skill
already documents, so `--vendor`, `--pipeline auto`, and then the whole
`classify` and `verify-openai-synthid` commands each shipped with a green suite.
`test_every_cli_command_is_named_somewhere_in_the_skill` closes that.

None of it proves the only thing a skill is for: that a model reaches for it and
then obeys it. `scripts/skill_eval.py` builds a throwaway project with the skill
installed and a recording stand-in for the CLI on PATH, runs a headless agent on
one user prompt, and grades the recorded command trace. Grading is mechanical --
"did it run `all` where the probe said nothing is written" is a fact in the
trace, and "did it name an output file that is not on disk" catches a fabricated
result without asking a model to judge itself. Agents are nondeterministic, so
the report is a pass rate per check over repeats, never one verdict.

The harness is tested too: the stand-in's exit codes are compared against the
real CLI where the state is reproducible locally, the grader runs over hand-built
traces, and every case is checked for internal consistency, because a scenario
whose `identify` names a mark its `visible` cannot find measures the case rather
than the skill.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-05 11:27:17 -07:00

..

cases.json

Guard the skill against the CLI, and measure it against a model

2026-09-05 11:27:17 -07:00