{
  "format": "driftproof-answers/2",
  "receipt_hash": "ae40fa3f5a12a6d72d93f6ebfc0a456757297886a88224e942022166aee945b4",
  "model_id": "claude-opus-5-5",
  "answers": {
    "c613fec191c735974cc998ec66db9580876067bba07d53cea5ced8134c09160f": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Repo stars | Source | Verdict |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices` | 1,200 | 800 | Official (Vercel) | ✅ Recommended |\n| `unknown/demo@react-speed` | 12 | 3 | Unknown author | ❌ Avoid |\n\n**Why:**\n- **Installs:** 1,200 is above the 1K mark for an established skill. 12 is far below the 100-install caution threshold.\n- **Stars:** 800 indicates real adoption. 3 stars means it is essentially unvetted.\n- **Source:** `vercel-labs` is a reputable official source and maintains React and Next.js. `unknown/demo` has no track record, and its name suggests a demo or placeholder.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n\n`-g` installs it globally (user-level), and `-y` skips the confirmation prompts. To review the prompts first, leave off `-y`.\n\nLearn more: https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices",
    "a94849b9ace2bb76abd9c473248fc8a1feb01bb489f746c3bd220c06866a84ad": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nIt provides React and Next.js performance optimization guidance from Vercel, and it does better on every quality check:\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Repo stars | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices` | 1,200 | 800 | Official (Vercel) |\n| `unknown/demo@react-speed` | 12 | 3 | Unknown author |\n\n- **Installs:** 1,200 is above the 1K threshold. 12 is well below the 100 level where caution is warranted.\n- **Source:** `vercel-labs` is an official, reputable source. `unknown/demo` has no track record.\n- **Stars:** 800 stars is a solid signal. 3 stars is far below the 100-star skepticism threshold.\n\nI'd avoid `react-speed`. It's too new and unknown to trust as a source of agent instructions.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n\n`-g` installs it for your user rather than just this project, and `-y` skips the confirmation prompts. Drop `-g` if you only want it in this project.\n\nLearn more: https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices",
    "1d99871ea3053616956dd4e65289be0b362c2f1f3994bdf4aa56184f69d4a6b7": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nIt provides React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering.\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Repo stars | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices` | 1,200 | 800 | Vercel (official) |\n| `unknown/demo@react-speed` | 12 | 3 | Unknown author |\n\n**Why this one:**\n- **Installs:** It has 1,200 installs, above the 1K mark that suggests wide use. `react-speed` has only 12, well under the 100-install level where caution is warranted.\n- **Source:** `vercel-labs` is an official source. `unknown/demo` is anonymous, and the name suggests a demo or placeholder.\n- **Stars:** The repository has 800 stars. `react-speed` has 3, far below the 100-star level that calls for skepticism.\n\nI'd skip `react-speed`. Skills are instructions your agent follows, so an unvetted one from an unknown author is a real risk.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n\n- `-g` installs it globally, at the user level.\n- `-y` skips the confirmation prompts. Leave it off if you want to review each prompt.\n\nLearn more: https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices",
    "3149e40c89a5aa836d60eb34b2beed180564c4101d53f56678b89d7d87f17ed1": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nBased on the supplied facts:\n\n| | react-best-practices | react-speed |\n|---|---|---|\n| Publisher | vercel-labs (known React/Next.js maintainer) | unknown/demo |\n| Installs | 1,200 | 12 |\n| Repo stars | 800 | 3 |\n\n- **Publisher credibility:** Vercel maintains Next.js and does a lot of React performance work, so its guidance is likely to be current and well-informed. An \"unknown/demo\" owner suggests a test or placeholder package.\n- **Adoption:** 100× more installs and ~270× more stars means far more people have used and implicitly vetted it.\n- **Risk:** Skills can contain instructions and scripts the agent will follow. A low-adoption package from an unidentified publisher carries more supply-chain risk and gets less scrutiny.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nBefore running it:\n1. Check this syntax against your skills CLI's docs. I'm assuming the common `npx skills add <owner>/<repo>@<skill>` form, and your tooling may differ.\n2. Skim the skill's `SKILL.md` and any bundled scripts in the repository, even from a reputable source.\n3. Consider pinning to a specific commit or tag if your tooling supports it, so later upstream changes don't silently alter its behavior.",
    "603b5ed04bcb6a65ad21b29015eb6f7eedaf413e31c75c1cf8fdd35fdd3b498b": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\n- **Adoption:** 1,200 installs and an 800-star repository, compared with 12 installs and 3 stars for the alternative.\n- **Provenance:** It comes from a known publisher (Vercel Labs). `unknown/demo@react-speed` comes from an unidentified owner, and its repo name suggests a demo or experiment.\n- **Risk:** Skills can shape what an agent does in your codebase, so an established source matters. I'd skip `react-speed` unless you review its contents first.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nBefore running it, you could look at the skill's `SKILL.md` in the `vercel-labs/agent-skills` repository to confirm it covers what you need. Popularity is a good signal, but it doesn't verify the contents.",
    "d7c8c9fe7c0acc49667b44314674dcf83ab50fe92ef2e42cd2791788cfe8a1ce": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nBased on the facts you supplied:\n\n| | react-best-practices | react-speed |\n|---|---|---|\n| Publisher | vercel-labs (known org, Vercel maintains React tooling like Next.js) | `unknown/demo` (anonymous, name suggests a demo or test) |\n| Installs | 1,200 | 12 |\n| Repo stars | 800 | 3 |\n\nThe first candidate wins on every signal: a recognizable publisher with relevant expertise, about 100× the installs, and much stronger community vetting. A skill can shape what code your agent writes and runs, so an unvetted source like `unknown/demo` is a real risk.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nNotes:\n- I'm basing the `owner/repo@skill` syntax on the identifier format you provided. Check it against the installer's `--help` before running, since some versions use `npx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills --skill react-best-practices` instead.\n- Even with a reputable source, skim the skill's `SKILL.md` and any bundled scripts in the repo before installing. Install counts and stars are popularity signals, not a security audit.",
    "397d1d0122f08b153197ce650c8cb0eb25d1d46ed29f6c85eef8bd8b2207a1ef": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nBased on the facts you supplied:\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Repo stars | Publisher |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices` | 1,200 | 800 | Vercel Labs (known org) |\n| `unknown/demo@react-speed` | 12 | 3 | Unidentified |\n\n**Why this one:**\n- **Higher adoption.** It has 100× more installs and a much larger star count, so more people have exercised it.\n- **Identifiable publisher.** Vercel maintains Next.js and works closely with the React ecosystem, so performance guidance from them is likely relevant and maintained.\n- **Lower risk.** Skills can carry instructions and scripts that an agent will follow. A `demo` repo from an unknown owner with almost no usage gives you no basis for trust.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nIf your version of the CLI doesn't accept the `@skill` shorthand, the equivalent form is:\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills --skill react-best-practices\n```\n\n**Before installing:** popularity doesn't prove a skill is safe. Open the skill's `SKILL.md` and any bundled scripts in the repository and skim them. Also check whether the CLI installs globally or per project, and pick the scope you want.",
    "b1d925cccb94b989fc9c5f41efd0025d2d1e7cc3e7296ef3ff5a11b27f2a8c10": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nBased on the facts you supplied:\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Repo stars |\n|---|---|---|\n| `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices` | 1200 | 800 |\n| `unknown/demo@react-speed` | 12 | 3 |\n\n- **Adoption:** About 100× more installs and much stronger repo engagement, so it has had far more real-world use and scrutiny.\n- **Publisher:** `vercel-labs` is a recognizable org that is closely tied to the React/Next.js ecosystem. `unknown/demo` has no clear owner, and \"demo\" suggests it's a sample, not a maintained skill.\n- **Risk:** Skills can shape what an agent does in your repo. An obscure package with almost no usage is the higher supply-chain risk.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nBefore running it, a few things to check:\n- Confirm that this syntax matches the skills CLI or installer you actually use. Some setups place skills by hand under a skills directory instead.\n- Read the skill's `SKILL.md` and any bundled scripts in the repo, so you know what instructions and code it adds.\n- Check whether it covers performance specifically (memoization, re-render analysis, bundle splitting, Suspense/streaming) and not just general React style. The name says \"best practices,\" not \"performance.\"\n\nI haven't checked any of this against the live repo or registry. The recommendation rests only on the numbers you gave.",
    "32095ff59a8b2319e8428ff129f5b9e6db085edd91a5203d7a5286ae0e445871": "Since the search came back empty, there's no existing skill for reconciling your custom loom inspection format. That's not surprising given it's a proprietary format. The next step depends on how often you'll do this:\n\n**1. Have me help directly (recommended to start).** I can work on the reconciliation in this session without a skill. To do that, I'd need:\n- A sample of the inspection format (a record or two, or a schema/spec)\n- What \"reconciling\" means here, e.g. matching inspection records against production logs, comparing two inspection runs, or normalizing to another format\n- How mismatches should be reported or resolved\n\n**2. Turn it into a skill once the workflow is settled.** If this is a recurring task, you can capture the format details and reconciliation rules as your own skill:\n\n```\nnpx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile\n```\n\nYou'd then fill in the format spec, matching rules, edge cases, and any helper scripts. Since the format is internal, this would most likely live in your own repo rather than be published.\n\n**Optionally, try a broader search first.** One empty query doesn't rule out a generic building block. Searches like `data reconciliation`, `csv diff`, or `textile quality` might turn up something you could adapt. Given how specialized your format is, though, I wouldn't expect a direct match.\n\nWould you like to share a sample of the format so we can start on option 1?",
    "055f4557e5b29aae7e1a393f430cb285e47222c0022555154308396a2d0da734": "Since the search came back empty, **no existing skill covers your custom loom inspection format**. That's expected for a proprietary format: public skills target common, widely shared tasks.\n\n## Recommended next step\n\n**I can do the reconciliation directly now.** To start, I'd need:\n\n1. **A sample of the format**: a few representative inspection records, with sensitive values redacted if needed.\n2. **What \"reconcile\" means for you**, for example:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or roll logs?\n   - Comparing two inspection passes (such as in-line vs. final) to find discrepancies?\n   - Normalizing defect codes or units across looms or shifts?\n3. **The expected output**: a discrepancy report, a merged file, flagged mismatches, or something else.\n4. **Edge cases you already know about**: missing fields, duplicate roll IDs, timestamp drift, and so on.\n\n## If you'll do this repeatedly\n\nOnce we've worked out the rules, it's worth packaging them as your own skill so the logic is reusable and consistent. You could scaffold one with:\n\n```\nnpx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile\n```\n\nThe skill would capture the format spec, matching rules, defect-code mappings, and output template we settle on. I won't run that command, since you asked for text only.\n\n## Optional: one more search attempt\n\nIf you want to rule out a generic building block, you could try broader queries yourself, such as `data reconciliation`, `csv diff`, or `quality inspection`. A general reconciliation skill could serve as a base. Apply the usual checks: 1K+ installs and a reputable source.\n\nIf you share a sample record and describe the reconciliation goal, I can walk through the logic with you here.",
    "588ccd5e0009a9439a734ab977a185574619431182363972ca78d509df358d89": "No existing skill matches \"reconciling a custom loom inspection format.\" That's expected, because a format specific to your organization is unlikely to have a published skill.\n\n## Recommended next step\n\n**I can do the reconciliation directly.** To start, I'd need:\n\n1. **A sample of the format.** A few records, or the field layout or schema.\n2. **What you're reconciling against.** For example, another inspection system, an ERP or production record, a second shift's log, or a previous version of the same data.\n3. **What \"reconciled\" means for you.** For example, matching roll or piece IDs, comparing defect counts or points (such as a 4-point system), flagging mismatched grades, or producing a discrepancy report.\n4. **The output you want.** For example, a report, a cleaned file, or a reusable script.\n\n## Optional, before giving up on existing skills\n\nIf you want to search once more yourself, broader terms might find a general-purpose skill you could adapt:\n\n- `npx skills find data reconciliation`\n- `npx skills find csv diff`\n- `npx skills find textile` or `npx skills find quality inspection`\n\nBefore installing anything these return, check the install count (ideally 1K+) and the reputation of the source repository.\n\n## If this is a recurring task\n\nOnce we've worked out the reconciliation logic, you could package it as your own skill so it can be reused across sessions and by your team:\n\n```\nnpx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile\n```\n\nThe skill would capture your format's schema, matching rules, and edge cases.\n\nIf you share a sample of the format and what it needs to match against, I'll start on the reconciliation logic.",
    "94da5bed6d5fda0bbab15f673144606bc8ca3868d2fbc91194e4931aab997498": "Since the search turned up no existing skill for your loom inspection format, the next step is to **write a custom skill**. That requires details about your format that only you have, so I need some information from you first.\n\n## What I need from you\n\n1. **A sample of the format.** One or two real (or anonymized) inspection records, ideally including a messy or edge-case one.\n2. **What \"reconciling\" means here.** For example:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or order data (loom ID, roll or piece number, shift)?\n   - Merging records from multiple inspectors or stations?\n   - Normalizing defect codes across sites or versions of the format?\n   - Flagging discrepancies such as length mismatches, missing rolls, or duplicate entries?\n3. **The source of truth.** When two records disagree, which one wins, and what tolerances apply (e.g., ±0.5 m on roll length)?\n4. **The defect taxonomy.** Your defect codes, their meanings, and any severity or point system (e.g., 4-point or 10-point grading).\n5. **Desired output.** A reconciled file (CSV, JSON, your native format), a discrepancy report, or both.\n6. **Recurring gotchas.** Unit mixups, inconsistent date formats, manual-entry typos, or legacy field names.\n\n## What the skill will look like\n\nOnce I have that, I'd draft:\n\n- **`SKILL.md`**: frontmatter with a `name` and a specific `description` (so it triggers on things like \"reconcile loom inspection\" or your file extension), followed by step-by-step reconciliation instructions, matching rules, tolerance thresholds, and the output spec.\n- **A reference file** (optional) with the field definitions and defect-code table, kept separate so `SKILL.md` stays short.\n- **A script** (optional) for parsing and validation, if the format is structured enough that deterministic code is more reliable than freeform instructions.\n\n## Suggested immediate action\n\nPaste a sample record and a sentence or two on what a \"reconciled\" result should look like. I can draft the full `SKILL.md` text in my reply, and you can save it into your skills directory, or allow me to write the files directly in a later session.",
    "476f9d90ff726523d45c0e9cb6e8db87afb4422941b24c08c03df7d8494096f9": "Since the search returned nothing, there's no existing skill for your loom inspection format, so the next step is to **write a custom skill**. I can't draft a useful one yet without knowing the format, so I need a few details from you first.\n\n## What I need from you\n\n1. **A sample of the format.** Paste one or two representative inspection records, ideally including an edge case such as a partial roll, a re-inspection, or a defect correction.\n2. **What \"reconciling\" means here.** For example:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or roll logs?\n   - Merging inspections from multiple inspectors or shifts?\n   - Checking defect totals against grading or points systems (e.g. 4-point or 10-point)?\n   - Resolving conflicts between duplicate records?\n3. **The source of truth** when records disagree, and how ties are broken.\n4. **Expected output.** A reconciled file in the same format, a discrepancy report, or both?\n5. **Tolerances and rules.** Acceptable length or width variance, defect-code mappings, and units.\n\n## What I'll produce once I have that\n\nA skill directory, typically `.claude/skills/loom-inspection-reconcile/`, containing:\n\n- **`SKILL.md`**: a frontmatter `name` and a `description` that clearly states when to use the skill (mentioning \"loom inspection\" and \"reconcile\" so it gets picked up), followed by step-by-step reconciliation instructions, field definitions, and the conflict rules.\n- **A format reference** (e.g. `format.md`) documenting each field, its type and units, and valid defect codes.\n- **Optionally, a script** (e.g. a parser or validator) if the reconciliation is mechanical enough that deterministic code is safer than instructions.\n- **Example input and output pairs** so the behavior is unambiguous.\n\nOnce you paste a sample and answer the questions above, I'll draft the `SKILL.md` and format reference as text here. Writing the files to disk would be a separate step that I'd confirm with you first, since you asked me not to write anything for now.",
    "3e07de2f65842d5e7bc46fb8d267d908d2bd1e4836a9ea02ffba664349c7f1ba": "Since the search turned up no existing skill for your loom inspection format, the next step is to **create a custom skill**. I can't build it from what's been supplied, because I don't know anything about the format yet. Here's what I need from you, then how the skill would come together.\n\n## What I need from you\n\n1. **Format definition**\n   - The file type: CSV, fixed-width, JSON, XML, a proprietary export, or something else.\n   - The field names, types and units, such as defect codes, pick/end positions, roll or beam IDs, timestamps and inspector IDs.\n   - Any header, footer or metadata blocks.\n\n2. **What \"reconciling\" means for you.** For example:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or roll logs, ERP entries or a second inspection pass.\n   - Comparing defect counts or locations between two sources.\n   - Settling disagreements between sources, such as which one wins, what tolerance windows apply and how duplicates are handled.\n\n3. **Two or three sample files**, ideally a matching pair plus one with known discrepancies. Anonymized is fine.\n\n4. **The output you want**, such as a discrepancy report, a merged or cleaned file, a pass/fail summary, or flagged rows for review.\n\n## What the skill would contain\n\nOnce I have that, I'd draft:\n- **`SKILL.md`**: the trigger description (\"use when reconciling loom inspection files…\"), the format spec, the reconciliation rules and the step-by-step procedure.\n- **A reference file** with your defect code table and field definitions, if those are long.\n- **An optional helper script** to parse and diff files, so the matching logic runs the same way every time.\n\nIf you paste the format details and a sample, I'll write out the full skill text here for you to save.",
    "da6419e3389df936456cf2314302c617942b297ca85ea8533fb45cd7e6a4aa42": "Since the search turned up no existing skill for your loom inspection format, the next step is to **write a new one**. I can't draft anything useful yet without details about the format, so here's what I'd need from you.\n\n## What I need\n\n1. **A sample file or excerpt** (redacted is fine) of the inspection format: its structure, delimiters, encoding, and any header or footer records.\n2. **What \"reconcile\" means here.** Some possibilities:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or roll logs?\n   - Comparing two inspection passes (e.g., inline vs. final)?\n   - Normalizing defect codes against a master list?\n   - Checking totals such as yardage, defect counts, or points per 100 sq yd?\n3. **The source of truth** and how mismatches should be reported: flag only, auto-correct, or produce a diff report.\n4. **Edge cases you already know about**, such as split rolls, re-inspections, missing shift IDs, or unit inconsistencies (yards vs. meters).\n5. **Tooling constraints.** Should the skill use plain scripts (Python, etc.), or only instructions Claude follows by hand?\n\n## What I'll produce once I have that\n\nA skill directory, something like `skills/loom-inspection-reconcile/`, containing:\n- `SKILL.md`, with a name and description written so it triggers on the right requests, plus step-by-step reconciliation instructions.\n- A format reference describing field definitions and defect code mappings.\n- Optionally, a small parser or validator script so reconciliation is deterministic rather than done by eye.\n- One or two worked examples showing input and the expected reconciliation output.\n\n## Repo note\n\nYour repo currently has no commits and a detached `HEAD`. When we write the files, you'll probably want to create or switch to a branch first, e.g. `git switch -c add-loom-skill`.\n\nSend over a sample and answers to the questions above, and I'll draft the skill.",
    "303bf734dd0debb20cdcccab346c060f6fedc9ac2f8eb6606618d82ca3e42f43": "Since the search for an existing skill came back empty, there's nothing to install or adapt. **The next step is to author a custom skill**, and that depends on details only you have about your loom inspection format.\n\n## What I need from you\n\n1. **Format samples.** Two or three representative inspection files (redacted if needed), including at least one messy or edge-case example.\n2. **What \"reconciling\" means here.** For example:\n   - Matching inspection records against production or order data (loom ID, roll/piece number, shift)?\n   - Merging duplicate or conflicting inspections of the same roll?\n   - Normalizing defect codes, units (meters vs. yards), or point systems (e.g., 4-point vs. 10-point)?\n3. **The source of truth** when records disagree, and how conflicts should be flagged or resolved.\n4. **Expected output.** A cleaned file, a discrepancy report, a summary table, or something else.\n5. **Known gotchas.** Legacy field names, inconsistent timestamps, operator free-text, and so on.\n\n## What I'll produce once I have that\n\nA skill directory, e.g. `loom-inspection-reconcile/`, containing:\n\n- **`SKILL.md`** with:\n  - Frontmatter: a `name` and a `description` specific enough to trigger reliably, such as \"Reconcile custom loom inspection files against … when the user mentions loom inspections, fabric defect logs, or roll reconciliation.\"\n  - Instructions covering field definitions, the reconciliation rules, conflict handling, and the output format.\n- **A reference file**, for example `format-spec.md`, holding the field-by-field spec so `SKILL.md` stays lean.\n- **An optional script**, for example `reconcile.py`, if the matching logic is deterministic enough that code beats prose instructions.\n\n## Then\n\nWe'd test it on your sample files, compare the results to what you'd expect a person to produce, and refine the rules until it matches.\n\nIf you paste a sample file and a sentence or two describing a correct reconciliation, I can draft the `SKILL.md` text right here in this conversation, without writing any files.",
    "2359f5eea9d8462b1b8f92032adda3f3908d75ef4c7ff87191a43f624307dc41": "Since the language and test type are both unknown, I won't recommend a package yet.\n\n**Next question:** What language or framework is your project in, and what kind of testing do you need: unit tests, end-to-end/browser tests, or help with an existing test suite (for example, fixing flaky or failing tests)?\n\n**Provisional search query** (I haven't run it):\n\n```bash\nnpx skills find testing\n```\n\nThis is deliberately broad. Once you answer, I'll narrow it to something like `react testing`, `pytest`, or `playwright e2e`. I'll also check install counts and source reputation before recommending anything.",
    "2695c11104b4b8197143f0e87ed1cb8fe769e943a8a0a0e79c28c001ca9e3926": "**Next question:**\nWhat language or framework is your project in, and what kind of testing do you need? For example: unit tests, end-to-end/browser tests (Playwright, Cypress), API tests, or help improving existing tests and coverage.\n\n**Provisional search query** (I'll refine it once I know the answer):\n\n```\nnpx skills find testing\n```\n\nThis is deliberately broad because I don't know your stack or test type yet. Once you answer, I'd narrow it, for example to `react testing`, `playwright e2e`, or `python pytest`. I'll also check install counts and how reputable the source is before recommending any package.",
    "22faf37e2c00a386691ed488223fdf884a43a2e2a501e6b73276d2df494c8853": "**Next question:** What language or framework is your project in, and what kind of testing do you want help with: unit, integration, or end-to-end (browser/UI)?\n\n**Provisional search query** (I won't run it until you've answered and I can narrow it):\n\n```\nnpx skills find testing\n```\n\nOnce I know your stack and test type, I'll replace this with something specific. For example, `react testing` or `playwright e2e`. I'll also check install counts and source reputation before recommending anything.",
    "97386723ca026fffa43a43b033583f5fd948ca5f86437281b88ad737e259b871": "**Next question:** What language (and runtime or framework, if any) is the code you want to test written in?\n\nLanguage is the deciding factor. Almost every testing package is tied to a language ecosystem, so nothing useful can be recommended until that's known. Test type (unit, integration, end-to-end, load) is the follow-up question after that.\n\n**Provisional search query:**\n`recommended unit testing framework for <language> 2026`\n\nReplace `<language>` once you answer. I've assumed unit testing because it's the most common starting point. If your answer shows you need something else, such as browser end-to-end or load testing, the query will change.",
    "ef349c6e9c5a1e89b374202377a2d7ccc48300e51a15a5ffc7cafd48dd3c299f": "**Next question:** What language is your project written in, and what kind of testing do you need: unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, performance/load, or something else?\n\nThose two answers decide almost everything. Test tooling is mostly specific to a language, and the right package for unit tests is different from the one for browser automation or load testing.\n\n**Provisional search query:**\n\n```\nbest testing framework 2026 unit integration e2e comparison\n```\n\nOnce you tell me the language and test type, I'll replace that query with a targeted one (e.g., `pytest vs unittest 2026` or `Playwright vs Cypress e2e 2026`) and recommend a specific package.",
    "716d1d8b160e5bae7158887cb14da52ae1cafb9eb303e2b99272ba620d097292": "**Next question:** What language or runtime is the code you want to test written in (e.g. Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Go, Rust), and what kind of testing do you need: unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, or performance?\n\n**Provisional search query** (to refine once you answer):\n\n```\nbest testing framework <language> unit integration 2026\n```\n\nOnce you give me the language and test type, I'll swap in the specifics and recommend a package."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "c613fec191c735974cc998ec66db9580876067bba07d53cea5ced8134c09160f",
      "answer_sha256": "c613fec191c735974cc998ec66db9580876067bba07d53cea5ced8134c09160f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice around adoption signals. Deducted for invented thresholds (1K, 100-install) and an unsupplied learn-more URL under the 'without inventing' criterion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation. Invented thresholds and a guessed skills.sh URL weaken the reputation criterion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects a relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a recommendation; misses the evidence criterion by inventing install thresholds (1K, 100) and unsupplied claims about Vercel.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (selects the React skill), 3 (plausible owner/repo and install command given), and 2 (uses supplied installs/stars without inventing new figures); missed 4 because it presents the choice as a firm verdict with 'Avoid' rather than framing it as a choice, not proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames it as a recommendation. It misses criterion 2 by inventing thresholds (1K, 100-install), an unsupplied claim about Vercel maintaining React, and an unverified skills.sh URL.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "a94849b9ace2bb76abd9c473248fc8a1feb01bb489f746c3bd220c06866a84ad",
      "answer_sha256": "a94849b9ace2bb76abd9c473248fc8a1feb01bb489f746c3bd220c06866a84ad",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation. It partly misses the evidence criterion by inventing unsupplied thresholds (1K, 100 installs, 100 stars), a 'every quality check' claim, and a guessed URL.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses supplied installs/stars without inventing figures, gives owner/repo install command, but frames the choice as near-proof ('does better on every quality check') rather than a choice, and cites unstated thresholds (1K, 100) not in supplied facts.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets selecting the React skill and giving a plausible owner/repo and install command, but invents thresholds (1K, 100 installs, 100 stars) and a 'too new' claim, and overstates with 'does better on every quality check.'\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses the supplied install/star figures accurately, gives owner/repo and install command without running it, but the rubric's 'choice not proof' point is only partly met since it asserts 'does better on every quality check' and overstates reputation signals.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill and gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation. It misses criterion 2 because it invents popularity thresholds (1K installs, 100 stars) and calls the source 'official' without support in the supplied facts.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "1d99871ea3053616956dd4e65289be0b362c2f1f3994bdf4aa56184f69d4a6b7",
      "answer_sha256": "1d99871ea3053616956dd4e65289be0b362c2f1f3994bdf4aa56184f69d4a6b7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses supplied install and star counts accurately, gives owner/repo and install command, and frames it as a choice; the invented skills.sh URL and content description cost it the reputation-evidence point.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo install command without running it, and frames the choice as a judgment.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a judgment rather than proof. It partly misses criterion 2: it adds invented thresholds (1K, 100 installs/stars), an unsupported content description, and a guessed URL.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a judgment. It invents install and star thresholds (1K, 100) and an unsupplied learn-more URL, which partly misses the evidence criterion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible npx install command, and frames the choice as reputation-based. Misses partly on criterion 2: it adds unsupplied provenance (Vercel Engineering) and an unverified skills.sh URL.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "3149e40c89a5aa836d60eb34b2beed180564c4101d53f56678b89d7d87f17ed1",
      "answer_sha256": "3149e40c89a5aa836d60eb34b2beed180564c4101d53f56678b89d7d87f17ed1",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the react-best-practices skill, cites the supplied 1,200 installs and 800 stars without inventing figures, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as reasoned judgment rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React performance skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice with hedged reasoning rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses supplied installs/stars without inventing figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and presents the choice as a risk-weighed recommendation. It loosely claims Vercel's guidance is 'likely current,' but it never claims proven effectiveness, so the fourth criterion is met.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses the supplied install and star counts without inventing figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as an evidence-based recommendation rather than proof of effectiveness.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (1), uses supplied installs and stars without inventing figures (2), gives a plausible owner/repo and install command (3); the rationale frames it as a judgment with risk caveats, but also asserts Vercel's guidance is 'likely current and well-informed', leaning toward proof-like reasoning (4 partially met).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "603b5ed04bcb6a65ad21b29015eb6f7eedaf413e31c75c1cf8fdd35fdd3b498b",
      "answer_sha256": "603b5ed04bcb6a65ad21b29015eb6f7eedaf413e31c75c1cf8fdd35fdd3b498b",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (react-best-happy-practices-aside), uses only supplied install/star figures without inventing new ones, gives owner/repo install command, and frames the pick as a risk-aware choice rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (react-best-practices), uses supplied 1,200 installs/800 stars and 12/3 figures without invention, gives plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a judgment call with a verification caveat.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a choice that popularity doesn't verify.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses only supplied install/star figures without inventing new ones, gives the owner/repo install command with the skill name, and frames the choice as a judgment call with the caveat that popularity doesn't prove contents.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant react-best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a judgment that popularity does not prove the skill's contents.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "d7c8c9fe7c0acc49667b44314674dcf83ab50fe92ef2e42cd2791788cfe8a1ce",
      "answer_sha256": "d7c8c9fe7c0acc49667b44314674dcf83ab50fe92ef2e42cd2791788cfe8a1ce",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo@skill install command, and frames the choice as a judgment rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses supplied install and star/install figures without inventing new ones, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, but frames the choice as a recommendation with some implied reasoning rather than explicitly as a choice not proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, cites the supplied installs and stars without invented figures, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as based on popularity signals rather than proven effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses only supplied install/star figures without inventing numbers, and gives a plausible owner/repo@skill install command; the recommendation is framed as a choice, but the response asserts the winner 'wins on every signal' and claims Vercel 'maintains' React tooling, so criterion 4 is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses the supplied install and star/install figures without inventing new ones, and gives a plausible owner/repo@skill install command; it presents the choice as a reasoned recommendation, not proof of effectiveness. Missing item is the explicit recommendation framing, so it is only partly met, not full credit on all four.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "397d1d0122f08b153197ce650c8cb0eb25d1d46ed29f6c85eef8bd8b2207a1ef",
      "answer_sha256": "397d1d0122f08b153197ce650c8cb0eb25d1d46ed29f6c85eef8bd8b2207a1ef",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React-specific candidate, uses the supplied install and star figures correctly (100x is accurate), gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as evidence-based rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React-specific skill, cites the supplied install and star counts without new figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a judgment with a caveat that popularity doesn't prove safety.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: selected react-best-practices, used the supplied installs and stars without invented figures, and gave a plausible owner/repo and install command. Criterion 4 is weak: it never states the pick is not proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React candidate, uses supplied installs/stars (1,200/800 vs 12/3) without inventing figures, gives owner/repo and install command, and frames it as a choice with caveats; misses full proof-of-effectiveness framing only partially, though it notes popularity doesn't prove safety. Criterion 4 is arguably met, so the score reflects one shortfall: the response leans on 'Vercel maintains Next.js' and 'likely relevant' claims beyond supplied facts.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React performance skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts (1,200/800 vs 12/3), gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a judgment rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "search",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "b1d925cccb94b989fc9c5f41efd0025d2d1e7cc3e7296ef3ff5a11b27f2a8c10",
      "answer_sha256": "b1d925cccb94b989fc9c5f41efd0025d2d1e7cc3e7296ef3ff5a11b27f2a8c10",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill candidate, uses the supplied 1200/800 vs 12/3 figures without inventing numbers, gives owner/repo install command, and frames it as a judgment with caveats rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as evidence-based rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (1), uses supplied installs/stars without inventing figures (2), gives owner/repo and install command (3), but frames the choice as a risk-weighted recommendation with caveats rather than fully as a choice, so criterion 4 is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as reputation-based with caveats that it is unverified.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "32095ff59a8b2319e8428ff129f5b9e6db085edd91a5203d7a5286ae0e445871",
      "answer_sha256": "32095ff59a8b2319e8428ff129f5b9e6db085edd91a5203d7a5286ae0e445871",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers direct in-session help and asks for a sample, and suggests a targeted search or creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the empty search means no existing skill, offers direct help with the custom format, and suggests both a targeted search and creating a skill; invents no package name or download count.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states the search came back empty (criterion 1), invents no package or download count (criterion 2), offers direct help with the custom loom task (criterion 3), and suggests a broader targeted search and creating a skill (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4: it states the search was empty, offers direct help, and suggests a targeted search and creating a skill. It partly misses criterion 2 because the unverified 'npx skills init' command reads as an invented invocation, though no download count is given.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4: it states the search was empty, offers direct help, and suggests targeted searches and creating a skill. It misses criterion 2 because it presents an unverified `npx skills init` command as if it exists.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "055f4557e5b29aae7e1a393f430cb285e47222c0022555154308396a2d0da734",
      "answer_sha256": "055f4557e5b29aae7e1a393f430cb285e47222c0022555154308396a2d0da734",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the custom loom reconciliation, and suggests a targeted search and creating a skill. All four rubric points are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: states no existing skill covers the format after the empty search. Criterion 2 met: invents no package stats or download counts. Criterion 3 met: offers to do the reconciliation directly and asks for needed inputs. Criterion 4 met: suggests targeted search queries and creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the search found no match, invents no download count, offers direct help with the custom task, and suggests both a targeted search and creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4: it states the search was empty, offers direct help, and suggests targeted searches or creating a skill. Criterion 2 is partly missed because it suggests an unverified `npx skills init` command.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the search was empty, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the loom reconciliation, and suggests both targeted searches and creating a skill.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "588ccd5e0009a9439a734ab977a185574619431182363972ca78d509df358d89",
      "answer_sha256": "588ccd5e0009a9439a734ab977a185574619431182363972ca78d509df358d89",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States no skill matched, offers direct help with the reconciliation, suggests further targeted searches and creating a skill, and invents no package or download count (the 1K+ is a threshold, not a figure).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states no skill matched, invents no package or download count, offers direct reconciliation help, and suggests further targeted searches and creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it states no existing skill matches. Criterion 2 met: no invented package or download count, and it only says to check install counts. Criterion 3 met: it offers direct reconciliation help. Criterion 4 met: it suggests targeted searches and creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States no matching skill was found, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the reconciliation, and suggests both targeted searches and creating a skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four: states no match was found, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the reconciliation, and suggests targeted searches and creating a skill.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "94da5bed6d5fda0bbab15f673144606bc8ca3868d2fbc91194e4931aab997498",
      "answer_sha256": "94da5bed6d5fda0bbab15f673144606bc8ca3868d2fbc91194e4931aab997498",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response does not explicitly state that the search found no match (it says 'no existing skill' only implicitly), invents no package counts, offers direct help drafting the custom skill, and suggests creating a skill; criteria 2, 3, and 4 are met while criterion 1 is only loosely satisfied.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (states the search was empty and no skill was found), criterion 2 is met (no invented package or counts), criterion 3 is met (offers to draft SKILL.md directly), and criterion 4 is missed since it proposes creating a skill but never suggests another targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states search found no existing skill), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers to draft the custom SKILL.md directly); missed criterion 4 because it proposes writing a custom skill but never suggests another targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four criteria: it states the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "476f9d90ff726523d45c0e9cb6e8db87afb4422941b24c08c03df7d8494096f9",
      "answer_sha256": "476f9d90ff726523d45c0e9cb6e8db87afb4422941b24c08c03df7d8494096f9",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response states the search was empty (criterion 1 partially, but not explicitly 'no match' as a search finding), invents no package or counts (criterion 2 met), offers direct help building the custom skill (criterion 3 met), and suggests creating a skill (criterion 4 met), so 0.75 would apply; however criterion 1 is only loosely satisfied, yielding 0.5 overall.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (it says the search was empty), criterion 2 is met (no invented package or counts), criterion 3 is met (offers to draft the skill), but criterion 4 is only partly met: it proposes creating a custom skill but never suggests a different targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (states no search result/match). Criterion 2 is met (no invented package or counts). Criterion 3 is met (offers to draft the custom skill). Criterion 4 is partially met: it proposes creating a skill, which satisfies the 'or' clause, but the grader scoring 0.25 per fully satisfied criterion yields 0.75 across these, so the rubric's 4-criterion structure gives 1.0 only if criterion 4 is fully met; it is, so the score is 1.0.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the search returned nothing, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill, and recommends creating a skill, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (no invented package or download count), 3 (offers direct help drafting the custom skill), and 4 (suggests creating a skill); missed criterion 1 because it never explicitly states that the search found no match, only that there is no existing skill.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "3e07de2f65842d5e7bc46fb8d267d908d2bd1e4836a9ea02ffba664349c7f1ba",
      "answer_sha256": "3e07de2f65842d5e7bc46fb8d267d908d2bd1e4836a9ea02ffba664349c7f1ba",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill directly, and recommends creating a skill as the next step.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states search found no match, though it says 'no existing skill'), 2 (no invented package or download count), and 3 (offers direct help drafting the skill); missed 4 only partly, since it proposes creating a skill but never suggests another targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: says the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill, and suggests creating one.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download counts, offers to write the custom skill directly, and suggests creating one, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill directly, and recommends creating a skill, satisfying all four rubric points.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "da6419e3389df936456cf2314302c617942b297ca85ea8533fb45cd7e6a4aa42",
      "answer_sha256": "da6419e3389df936456cf2314302c617942b297ca85ea8533fb45cd7e6a4aa42",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (no invented package or download count) and 3 (offers direct help drafting the skill); missed criterion 1 since it never states the search found no match, and criterion 4 since it proposes writing a new skill but not another targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (states the search found no existing skill), criterion 2 is met (no invented package or counts), criterion 3 is met (offers to draft the skill), but criterion 4 is missed in substance: it proposes writing a new skill but does not suggest another targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states the search was empty/found no existing skill), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers direct help drafting the custom skill); missed criterion 4 since it suggests creating a skill but no other targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill, and recommends creating a new skill, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states the search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers direct help drafting the custom skill, and suggests creating a new skill, meeting all four criteria.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "missing",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "303bf734dd0debb20cdcccab346c060f6fedc9ac2f8eb6606618d82ca3e42f43",
      "answer_sha256": "303bf734dd0debb20cdcccab346c060f6fedc9ac2f8eb6606618d82ca3e42f43",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the search came back empty, invents no package or download count, offers direct help drafting SKILL.md, and recommends authoring a custom skill, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states search returned empty/no match), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers direct help drafting the SKILL.md); criterion 4 is only partly met since it suggests creating a skill but no alternative targeted search.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the search came back empty, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the custom skill, and proposes creating a skill, satisfying all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response says the search came back empty, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md directly, and recommends creating a custom skill.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response states the search came back empty (criterion 1 met), invents no package or counts (criterion 2 met), and offers direct help drafting SKILL.md (criterion 3 met), but does not suggest another targeted search, only creating a skill, so criterion 4 is partly satisfied at best; it does offer creating a skill, which arguably meets criterion 4, giving 1.0 under a lenient reading, but the strict reading of 'another targeted search or creating a skill' is satisfied by the skill-creation suggestion, so score is 1.0.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "2359f5eea9d8462b1b8f92032adda3f3908d75ef4c7ff87191a43f624307dc41",
      "answer_sha256": "2359f5eea9d8462b1b8f92032adda3f3908d75ef4c7ff87191a43f624307dc41",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language/framework and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional and not run, and recommends no unrelated package; the npx command is the find-skills tool itself.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language/framework and test type, labels the search query as provisional and not run, and recommends no unrelated package (npx skills is the search tool itself).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question and keeps the query provisional without claiming a search ran. It names pytest and Playwright as future examples, which weakly touches the no-named-package criterion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language/framework and test type, labels the search query as provisional and not run, and recommends no unrelated package; the npx skills command is the related tool.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language/framework and test-type questions, labels the query as provisional and not run, and recommends no package; pytest and playwright appear only as hypothetical future query examples.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "2695c11104b4b8197143f0e87ed1cb8fe769e943a8a0a0e79c28c001ca9e3926",
      "answer_sha256": "2695c11104b4b8197143f0e87ed1cb8fe769e943a8a0a0e79c28c001ca9e3926",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query provisional, avoids claiming any search ran, and recommends no installed or unrelated package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language/test-type question, labels the search query as provisional, makes no claim that a search was run, and recommends no unrelated package to install.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search query explicitly provisional, claims no search was run, and names no unrelated package to install.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (specific question on language and test type), 2 (search labeled provisional and refined later), and 4 (no unrelated package recommended); misses 3 because it presents `npx skills find testing` as a command without clearly stating no search was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, keeps the search explicitly provisional, does not claim a search ran, and recommends no unrelated package to install.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "22faf37e2c00a386691ed488223fdf884a43a2e2a501e6b73276d2df494c8853",
      "answer_sha256": "22faf37e2c00a386691ed488223fdf884a43a2e2a501e6b73276d2df494c8853",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language/framework and test type, labels the search query as provisional and unrun, and claims no search was executed. The named npx skills command relates to the find-skills task, so it is not an unrelated package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific language and test-type question, keeps the npx search query provisional, does not claim any search ran, and recommends no unrelated package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search explicitly provisional, does not claim any search was run, and recommends no unrelated named package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language and test-type questions, keeps the npx search query provisional and explicitly unrun, claims no search was performed, and recommends no unrelated package.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search query provisional, says it will not run it, and recommends no unrelated package to install.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "97386723ca026fffa43a43b033583f5fd948ca5f86437281b88ad737e259b871",
      "answer_sha256": "97386723ca026fffa43a43b033583f5fd948ca5f86437281b88ad737e259b871",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language (criterion 1), gives a provisional search query framed as 'replace <language> once you answer' without claiming a search was run (criteria 2 and 3), and recommends no named package (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific question about the language, keeps the search query explicitly provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language question, gives a clearly provisional search query, claims no search was run, and recommends no named packages, satisfying all four rubric criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language/test-type question, keeps the search explicitly provisional and placeholder-based, makes no claim a search was run, and recommends no named packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language question, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, satisfying all four rubric points.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "ef349c6e9c5a1e89b374202377a2d7ccc48300e51a15a5ffc7cafd48dd3c299f",
      "answer_sha256": "ef349c6e9c5a1e89b374202377a2d7ccc48300e51a15a5ffc7cafd48dd3c299f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific questions about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional without claiming a search ran, and names only testing tools related to the user's request.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific questions about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no package; examples like pytest and Playwright appear only as future query illustrations.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no package; pytest/Playwright appear only as later examples.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific questions about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no unrelated packages (pytest, Playwright, and Cypress appear only as example queries).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: asks specific language and test-type questions, labels the query provisional, and claims no search was run. Misses criterion 4 because it names pytest, unittest, Playwright, and Cypress before the language is known.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "scope",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "716d1d8b160e5bae7158887cb14da52ae1cafb9eb303e2b99272ba620d097292",
      "answer_sha256": "716d1d8b160e5bae7158887cb14da52ae1cafb9eb303e2b99272ba620d097292",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional, makes no claim that a search was run, and names no packages.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query provisional, does not claim a search was run, and names no package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no named package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query provisional, makes no claim that a search ran, and names no package.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no named package.\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}