Install
$ agentstack add skill-allemaar-open-skills-insight-assess ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
/assess
Structured evaluation of an approach, decision, or implementation — assess viability across multiple dimensions and deliver a clear recommendation.
> Structured execution spec: [protocol.yon](protocol.yon). Read it for the canonical rules and step sequence; this file is explanation. The two must stay in sync — if you edit one, update the other and refresh the @STAMP date.
> Decision Support Protocol — convergent evaluation. /insight-explore generates alternatives (divergent). /insight-assess evaluates them (convergent). /insight-critique reviews outputs (reactive). Three complementary tools.
Phase 1 — Frame the Decision
Identify what is being assessed: a specific approach, a decision between options, an implementation pattern, or an architectural direction.
Load relevant context — files, docs, KIs, skills. Define what we are optimizing for and the constraints.
Gate: cannot assess without a clear subject. If the decision cannot be framed, ask for clarification before proceeding.
Phase 2 — Dimensional Analysis
Evaluate across all relevant dimensions. Skip dimensions that don't apply.
Pros & cons — concrete advantages and disadvantages. Cite actual code, dependencies, or patterns. No vague generalizations. If comparing multiple options, do side-by-side.
Quality assessment — score STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK with justification on:
- Performance — bundle size, runtime overhead, N+1 queries, render cycles
- Code quality — DRY violations, coupling, testability, readability
- Developer experience — API ergonomics, debugging ease, onboarding friction
- Maintainability — upgrade path, community support, lock-in risk
Impact assessment — map and classify overall impact LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH:
- Blast radius — packages/apps/files
- Migration effort — if replacing something
- Breaking changes — if any
- Learning curve — for the team
- Future flexibility — does this open or close doors?
Phase 3 — Alignment Check
- Does this align with repo coding standards?
- Does it follow existing patterns, or introduce a new one?
- If new, is it justified?
- Check relevant skills and KIs for prior art.
Phase 4 — Recommendation
Structure:
- VERDICT — one of:
PROCEED/PROCEED WITH CAVEATS/RECONSIDER/REJECT - RATIONALE — 1–2 sentences
- CONDITIONS — if
PROCEED WITH CAVEATS: what must be addressed - ALTERNATIVES — if
RECONSIDER/REJECT: what to do instead
Gate: assessment is incomplete without a recommendation delivered to the user.
Rules
- MUST be concrete and specific when listing pros/cons — cite actual code, libraries, or patterns.
- MUST check performance, DX, and maintainability — not just correctness.
- MUST use consistent dimensions across all options when comparing.
- MUST NOT make changes, write code, or execute — evaluation only.
- MUST NOT hedge without a clear verdict — always commit to a recommendation.
- SHOULD note caveats or conditions even if minor when recommending PROCEED.
- SHOULD suggest concrete alternatives when recommending RECONSIDER.
Next Steps
/plan-create— if verdict is PROCEED/insight-explore— if more options are needed before deciding/insight-critique— if a deeper review of specific output is needed
> Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output > contract (human-output/SKILL.md).
> Next skills. On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (next-skills/SKILL.md): surface the next-skills recommendations from front-matter for the caller to pick. Offer only — never auto-invoke.
> Self-improvement. On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (self-improve/SKILL.md): if this run surfaced a concrete, blocking-or-recurring weakness in this skill, propose a specific fix for the handler to approve. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: allemaar
- Source: allemaar/open-skills
- License: Apache-2.0
- Homepage: https://allemaar.com
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.