{ "format": "driftproof-answers/2", "receipt_hash": "e2403573b7370d33e8b7d18f8287d7a90abe1ed18feb1cab482baa909f0b7b67", "model_id": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "answers": { "add1647177d15eed03e0d9e59abe86bc6caac199afb5e843e35ae61d35301502": "I recommend **vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices**.\n\n**Why this one**\n- **Install count:** 1,200 installs, above the 1K+ threshold I look for. The alternative has 12, well under the 100 level where I'd be cautious.\n- **Repository reputation:** 800 stars, versus 3 for the other candidate (which is under the 100-star mark I treat with skepticism).\n- **Source:** `vercel-labs` is an established, official-tier publisher. `unknown/demo` is an unidentified author.\n- **Fit:** the name and scope (React and Next.js performance guidelines) match what you asked for.\n\n**Why not `unknown/demo@react-speed`**\nVery low installs, almost no stars, and an unknown author. There's not enough evidence of quality or trustworthiness to recommend it for something that would shape how I write your code.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run)**\n```\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n`-g` installs it globally at the user level, and `-y` skips confirmation prompts. If you'd rather install it only for this project, drop `-g`. If you'd like to confirm prompts yourself, drop `-y`.\n\n**Learn more:** https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices\n\nI've only worked from the figures you supplied and haven't independently verified them. If you want me to install it, tell me and I'll run the command.", "565495ca66a04969725265106dee5d001bafc37ba26c5a4c9b725a15a157b3f0": "I recommend **vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices**.\n\n**Why this one**\n- **Installs:** 1,200 clears the 1K+ threshold I'd want. The alternative has 12, well under the 100 mark where I'd be cautious.\n- **Repository:** 800 stars, well above the 100-star floor. The other has 3.\n- **Source:** `vercel-labs` is an established, official-tier publisher. `unknown/demo` is an unknown author with no track record.\n\n**Why not unknown/demo@react-speed**\nIt fails all three checks: very low installs, very few stars, and an unverified source. A skill shapes how I work in your codebase, so I'd avoid an unvetted one when a well-adopted option covers the same domain.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run)**\n```\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n`-g` installs it globally at the user level, and `-y` skips confirmation prompts. If you'd rather review prompts as they appear, drop `-y`.\n\n**Learn more:** https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices\n\nI haven't installed anything or accessed the network, and the figures above come only from the candidates you supplied. Tell me if you want me to run the install.", "75e123a11d8ce7dafd5328305cf4879c764c0de82744eefba63029362f47d425": "I recommend **vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices**.\n\n**Why this one**\n- **Install count:** 1,200 installs, above the 1K+ threshold I prefer. The alternative has only 12, well under the 100 mark where I'd be cautious.\n- **Source reputation:** `vercel-labs` is an official, well-known source. `unknown/demo` is an unidentified author.\n- **Repository stars:** 800 stars, comfortably above the 100-star skepticism line. The other has 3.\n\n**Why not `unknown/demo@react-speed`**\nIt has very low adoption (12 installs), almost no community validation (3 stars), and an unknown author. I wouldn't recommend it without reviewing its contents first.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run)**\n```\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices -g -y\n```\n`-g` installs it globally at the user level, and `-y` skips confirmation prompts. If you'd rather be prompted or install only for the current project, drop those flags.\n\n**Learn more:** https://skills.sh/vercel-labs/agent-skills/react-best-practices\n\nI haven't installed anything or accessed the network. This recommendation relies only on the figures you supplied. Let me know if you want me to proceed with the install.", "efa8a4af8e51677bc3c5825a1e30a7a340420dd4f6d9a6c8245cd0913f011d09": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nWhy, based only on the supplied facts:\n- **Adoption:** 1,200 installs versus 12 for `unknown/demo@react-speed`, so far more people have used it.\n- **Repository reputation:** 800 stars versus 3, which suggests more visibility and review.\n- **Provenance:** it comes from a identifiable organization (`vercel-labs`), while the other is published under `unknown/demo`, so its origin can't be verified.\n\nThe supplied facts don't include the skill's contents, so I haven't verified that it covers your specific React performance needs. Review its description or SKILL.md before relying on it.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nI'm assuming the `skills` CLI as the installer, since none was specified in the facts. Confirm that matches your setup before running it. I haven't installed anything.", "17a8ec68c2932d560c3aa297b49ecd2f2c9c6b063dc578b8143383f882516fd6": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nBased on the supplied facts:\n\n| Candidate | Installs | Stars |\n|---|---|---|\n| vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices | 1200 | 800 (repository) |\n| unknown/demo@react-speed | 12 | 3 |\n\nThe Vercel Labs skill has far more adoption (1200 vs. 12 installs) and a much more established repository (800 vs. 3 stars). The `unknown/demo` candidate has an unidentified publisher and minimal usage, so there's little evidence of quality or maintenance. Popularity isn't proof of quality, so it's worth skimming the skill's contents before relying on it, but on the available evidence it's the clear choice.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nI haven't installed anything. The exact CLI syntax wasn't in the facts you supplied, so I've assumed the common `npx skills add ` form. Please verify it against the tool's documentation before running it.", "0631620455cd37378e4cc2f7a5092f78348b81a0eee2c0695e4bcd19fb618c3f": "**Recommendation: `vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices`**\n\nWhy this one, based only on the facts you supplied:\n- **Adoption:** 1,200 installs versus 12 for the alternative.\n- **Repository reputation:** 800 stars versus 3.\n- **Publisher:** `vercel-labs` is an identifiable organization, while `unknown/demo` gives no clear provenance.\n\nThe low install and star counts for `unknown/demo@react-speed` don't prove it's bad, but with no other information there's no reason to prefer it. Popularity isn't a security guarantee either, so skim the skill's contents before relying on it.\n\n**Proposed install command (not run):**\n\n```bash\nnpx skills add vercel-labs/agent-skills@react-best-practices\n```\n\nI'm assuming the `skills` CLI and its `add owner/repo@skill` syntax, since that wasn't in the supplied facts. If your setup uses a different installer, the command will differ. Let me know if you want me to run it, and I'll do so once you confirm.", "e29c47c9febd538e00eca35f97d6d6d791093f2d2775db257c77bb2699cd7bbc": "An empty search result most likely means no published skill covers your custom loom inspection format. That's expected, since a format specific to your organization is unlikely to exist in the public ecosystem. I haven't searched beyond the result you gave me, so I can't rule out a skill listed under different terminology.\n\n**Next step: build your own skill, or have me do the reconciliation directly.**\n\n1. **Optional: one broader search.** If you want to be thorough, try more general terms such as `data reconciliation`, `inspection report`, `textile QA`, or `format conversion`. A general reconciliation skill might handle the workflow even if it doesn't know your format. Treat any hit with caution unless it has a solid install count and a reputable source.\n\n2. **Create a custom skill.** If you'll do this repeatedly, scaffold one with `npx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile`. The skill would capture:\n - The structure of your loom inspection format (fields, units, defect codes, delimiters, versioning)\n - What the other side of the reconciliation is (another system, a supplier's report, a master record)\n - Matching rules, such as which keys identify a record and what tolerances count as a match\n - How discrepancies should be reported (categories, severity, output format)\n\n3. **Or skip the skill for now.** I can do the reconciliation directly if you share a sample of the format, a sample of what it's being reconciled against, and the rules for what counts as a mismatch. If it turns out to be a recurring task, we can turn that work into a skill afterward.\n\nThe most useful thing you can send me is a couple of anonymized sample records from each source, plus a description of the matching rules. With those, I can either draft the skill's contents or work through the reconciliation itself.\n\nSince you asked me not to run anything, I haven't run any commands. The commands above are for you to run when you're ready.", "60f82c500b0da35f6b3a4372ecbdfe74ae2e94854b8a3f6fcc325ce0defc9262": "No existing skill turned up for your loom inspection format, which isn't surprising. A custom, in-house format is unlikely to have a public skill, so the search coming back empty is the expected result.\n\n**Next step: build the skill yourself, or have me handle the task directly.**\n\n1. **Do the task directly.** If reconciliation is occasional, I can do it without a skill. I'd need a sample of the format (a few anonymized records are enough), a description of what \"reconciled\" means for you (which fields must match, what counts as a discrepancy, which source is authoritative), and what output you want, such as a report, a corrected file, or a list of mismatches.\n\n2. **Create a custom skill.** If you reconcile regularly, a skill is worth it. Scaffold one with `npx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile`, which creates a `SKILL.md` you can fill in. A good one would contain:\n - A description of the format (fields, units, delimiters, versioning quirks)\n - The reconciliation rules and tolerances\n - Known edge cases, such as missing readings, duplicate inspection IDs, or re-inspections\n - The expected output shape\n - One or two worked examples with sample input and output\n\n Keep it in your repo or install it at the user level so it's available across projects.\n\n3. **Optionally, broaden the search.** You could try adjacent queries like \"data reconciliation\", \"csv diff\", or \"log parsing\" for a generic base, but these would only cover the generic parts. The loom-specific logic would still need to be yours.\n\nMy recommendation is option 1 first, using a sample file. Doing the task once will surface the rules and edge cases, and we can then turn them into a skill with real content instead of guesses.\n\nIf you'd like to go ahead, share a sample of the format and describe what a mismatch looks like.", "8eea6e5382a395fa0b2aa42defff5c8dadd468ed53ba74e6ebe6f793b4492000": "An empty search result most likely means no published skill matches your custom loom inspection format. That's unsurprising for a proprietary format, since public skills tend to cover common domains rather than in-house file structures.\n\n**Next step: build your own skill.** Since the format is custom, the knowledge a skill needs (the schema, the reconciliation rules, the edge cases) only exists with your team. Here's how I'd approach it:\n\n1. **Scaffold it.** Run `npx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile` (or whatever name you prefer). That generates a skill folder with a `SKILL.md` to fill in.\n\n2. **Write the description carefully.** The description is what triggers the skill, so name the format and the task explicitly, e.g. \"Use when reconciling loom inspection records in our custom format against ...\".\n\n3. **Document the essentials in the body:**\n - The format's structure (fields, types, units, versioning)\n - What \"reconciled\" means: which sources are compared, which one wins on conflict, and what tolerances apply\n - How to report discrepancies (output format, severity levels)\n - Known edge cases, such as missing fields, duplicate inspection IDs, or rerun inspections\n\n4. **Add reference material.** Include a few anonymized sample files and an expected reconciliation output, plus a schema or spec if you have one. Concrete examples improve results more than prose descriptions do.\n\n5. **Optionally, add a script** for the deterministic parts (parsing, diffing) so the agent doesn't redo that logic from scratch each time.\n\n6. **Test it** on a couple of real inspection files, then refine the instructions where the output goes wrong.\n\nIf you'd like, I can help draft the `SKILL.md` and outline the reference files. To do that I'd need a description of the format and a sample record, plus what a correct reconciliation looks like. I haven't run anything, as you asked, so none of this has been executed yet.", "070b84edf8b5a97f273718a0893a5b0a34765e911d8eb81d714b2363a9a8d64b": "An empty search result means no existing skill matched your query. That's expected for a custom loom inspection format, since a proprietary format is unlikely to have a public skill. Here's the next step.\n\n**1. Don't recommend or install anything.** With no results, there's nothing to verify against install counts or source reputation, so there's nothing safe to suggest.\n\n**2. Let me do the reconciliation directly.** I can handle this with general capabilities if you share:\n- A sample or spec of the loom inspection format (field names, delimiters, units, defect codes)\n- What it should be reconciled against (another format, a master record, a database export)\n- The matching rules (keys, tolerances, how to treat mismatches or missing records)\n- The desired output (a diff report, a merged file, a list of exceptions)\n\n**3. If you'll do this repeatedly, create your own skill.** Once the format and rules are clear, you can scaffold one with:\n\n```\nnpx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile\n```\n\nThe skill would capture the format definition, the reconciliation rules, and example inputs and outputs, so the work is repeatable and can be shared with your team. I'd recommend doing the task once by hand with me first, then encoding what worked into the skill.\n\n**4. Optionally, retry the search with broader terms.** Narrower niche terms often return nothing, so you could try queries like `data reconciliation`, `csv validation`, `textile manufacturing`, or `quality inspection`. A general reconciliation skill might cover part of the need, though it wouldn't know your format.\n\nSince you asked me not to use tools, I haven't run anything. If you share a sample of the format, I can start on the reconciliation logic in text right away.", "5691a64781aeeefe760f11df88c7d7a69d246bf3cae1458bbaa6c1565a2f277b": "No existing skill turned up for reconciling your custom loom inspection format, so the next step is to either do the work directly or build a skill of your own. An empty result is what I'd expect for a niche, in-house format, since the ecosystem mostly covers common domains like web development, testing, and DevOps.\n\n**Option 1: I do the reconciliation directly.** I can handle this with general capabilities, but I'd need a few things from you:\n- A sample or two of the loom inspection format (or a written spec of its fields)\n- What you're reconciling it against (another format, a database, a prior inspection run, a standard)\n- What \"reconciled\" means here: matching records, flagging mismatches, merging fields, or producing a report\n\n**Option 2: Create your own skill.** If this is a recurring task, a custom skill will pay off because it captures the format rules and reconciliation logic once and reuses them. You can scaffold one with:\n\n```\nnpx skills init loom-inspection-reconcile\n```\n\nThat creates a skill template you can fill in with the format description, the matching rules, the edge cases you've hit, and any example inputs and outputs. I can help you draft the contents once I have the details above.\n\n**My recommendation:** start with Option 1 on a real sample to pin down the reconciliation rules, then turn what we learn into a skill with Option 2 if you'll repeat the task. Since you asked me not to run anything, I haven't searched further or installed anything. If you share a sample of the format, I can take it from there.", "6398b2f1b6a29d811bda23e72a9fcd6b88a0cdcbee17fbf455272d856ea8f773": "An empty search result means no existing skill covers your custom loom inspection format, so the next step is to author one. I'd do that rather than broaden the search, since a custom format is unlikely to have a public match.\n\n**What I need from you first**\n\n1. **Format samples.** Two or three real inspection files or records, including at least one with known defects or mismatches. Redact anything sensitive.\n2. **The format spec, if one exists.** This covers field names, units, defect codes, and how a loom, a shift, and a fabric roll are identified. If there's no spec, I'll infer one from the samples and ask you to confirm it.\n3. **What \"reconcile\" means for you.** For example:\n - matching inspection records against production or work-order records\n - merging duplicate or conflicting inspections of the same roll\n - resolving differences between two systems or two inspectors\n - normalizing legacy and current versions of the format\n4. **Tie-break rules.** When two records disagree, which source wins, and which discrepancies should be flagged for a human rather than auto-resolved?\n5. **The expected output.** A cleaned file, a discrepancy report, or both, and in what format.\n\n**What the skill would contain**\n\n- A `SKILL.md` with a trigger description (when to use it) and the step-by-step reconciliation procedure.\n- A short reference file documenting the format and defect-code mappings.\n- Optionally, a small script for the mechanical parts (parsing, key matching, diffing), plus a sample input and expected output to check against.\n\n**Suggested order**\n\n1. You send the samples and answer the questions above.\n2. I draft the format reference and reconciliation rules in text for you to review.\n3. Once you approve, I write the skill files and test them against your samples.\n\nSince I can't use tools in this turn, nothing has been created yet. When you're ready, share the samples and confirm what \"reconcile\" means, and I'll start on the draft.", "c5551ad7446d1cae25aee4ce4c700557638585cbde9971e44844d5498fa77e94": "An empty search result means no existing skill covers your loom inspection format, so the next step is to write one yourself. Searching again with different terms is unlikely to help for a format that is custom to your team.\n\n**What to gather first**\n\n1. **Format samples:** 2-3 real inspection files, including one with known defects or edge cases. Redact anything sensitive.\n2. **Format spec or schema:** field names, types, units, delimiters, versioning, and any quirks such as optional sections or legacy variants.\n3. **The reconciliation target:** what you are reconciling against (another system's export, a production log, a QC database) and the key that links records, such as loom ID, lot, roll number, or timestamp.\n4. **Matching rules:** tolerances for numeric fields, how to treat missing or duplicate records, and which source wins on conflict.\n5. **Desired output:** a discrepancy report, a merged file, or a pass/fail summary, and in what shape.\n\n**What the skill should contain**\n\n- A `SKILL.md` with a short description saying when to trigger it (for example, \"reconciling loom inspection records\").\n- A section describing the format, with an annotated example.\n- The reconciliation procedure as ordered steps: parse, normalize, match on key, compare fields, classify discrepancies, report.\n- Explicit edge-case rules and an example input/output pair.\n- Optionally, a small parsing script in the skill folder if the format is awkward enough that you want deterministic behavior rather than ad hoc parsing each time.\n\n**Recommendation:** start with the samples and the matching rules (items 1 and 4). Those two are the hardest to infer, and a draft skill built on them can be tested right away. If you paste them here, I can draft the `SKILL.md` and tighten it against your examples.", "ba513b1eea51762f854388d34a0eb7946bd51ee2c6864f04065872098500114f": "An empty search result means no existing skill covers your custom loom inspection format. That is expected for a proprietary format, so the next step is to write the skill yourself rather than keep searching.\n\n**What to gather first**\n1. **Format spec or samples:** a schema, field list, or 3-5 representative inspection records, including at least one messy or edge-case example.\n2. **Definition of \"reconcile\":** reconcile against what? Common cases are inspection records vs. production or work-order data, one inspection format vs. another, or inspector entries vs. machine and sensor logs.\n3. **Matching keys:** loom ID, batch or lot, shift, timestamp, roll or beam number, or whatever links records together.\n4. **Discrepancy rules:** which mismatches matter (defect counts, grades, yardage, timestamps), what tolerances are acceptable, and which source wins when they disagree.\n5. **Desired output:** a discrepancy report, a corrected merged file, or a summary for review.\n\n**How to build the skill**\n- Create a skill folder with a `SKILL.md`. Its description should say when to trigger, for example \"reconciling loom inspection records in our custom format\".\n- In the body, document the format, the matching logic, the tolerance rules, and the output shape.\n- Put the sample records in a reference file inside the skill folder, and add a small parsing or validation script if the format is awkward to parse.\n- Test it on a known-good sample and on a sample with deliberate discrepancies, then refine the rules.\n\nIf you send me the format samples and your reconciliation rules, I can draft the `SKILL.md` and its supporting files. Since you asked me not to use tools in this turn, I'll hold off on creating files until you tell me to.", "f4da4264a1422ed3d6939aa5cab8b13a7c506db97f2c974811a3324566e5e356": "An empty search result means no existing skill covers your custom loom inspection format, so the next step is to write one. I can't write it yet because I don't know the format or what \"reconcile\" means for you.\n\n**What I need from you**\n1. **Format spec or samples:** a few representative inspection files (redacted if needed), covering normal cases and known-messy ones. If there's a schema or doc, that's even better.\n2. **Reconciliation definition:** which sources are being compared (e.g. loom inspection logs vs. production records, or two inspection systems), and which fields serve as the matching key (loom ID, batch, timestamp, etc.).\n3. **Discrepancy rules:** which mismatches matter, what tolerances apply (e.g. timestamp drift, rounding on defect counts), and which source wins when they conflict.\n4. **Desired output:** a report, a corrected file, or a list of exceptions, and in what format.\n\n**What I'd do once I have that**\n- Draft a skill with a clear trigger description (when to use it), the format notes, the matching and tolerance rules, and the output template.\n- Put any deterministic parsing or comparison logic in a small script rather than prose, so results are repeatable.\n- Test it against your sample files, including the edge cases, and refine it from there.\n\nIf you can only give me one thing right now, send the sample files. The format details usually settle most of the other questions.", "5b2ba74d42c0723f268173d98f3434799597cdab90526d92788738812a3e3ef0": "The empty search result means no existing skill for your loom inspection format turned up, so there's nothing to reuse or adapt. The next step is to write a custom skill. I'd do it in this order:\n\n1. **Collect format samples.** Gather 3-5 real inspection files, including at least one clean case and one with known discrepancies. Without real examples, any skill will be guessing at the structure.\n\n2. **Pin down the format spec.** Write down the fields, delimiters or schema, units, defect codes, timestamps, and loom/batch identifiers. Note which fields are optional and any quirks, such as versioned layouts or legacy fields.\n\n3. **Define \"reconcile.\"** Decide what's being matched against what (for example, inspection records vs. production logs, or one inspection pass vs. another), which keys join them, what tolerance counts as a match, and how mismatches should be reported (missing, duplicate, conflicting values).\n\n4. **Draft the skill.** A skill is typically a `SKILL.md` with a short description of when to use it, the format spec, the reconciliation steps, and the output format. If parsing is non-trivial, add a small helper script alongside it so the logic is deterministic rather than re-derived each time.\n\n5. **Test on your samples.** Run it against the known-discrepancy file and confirm it flags exactly what you expect, then refine edge cases.\n\nIf you share a sample file or a description of the format and the reconciliation rules, I can draft the `SKILL.md` and any parser for you. I haven't used any tools here, so this is based only on what you told me: the search came back empty.", "199282c620574975471105c871bde3ad4b047219802b9a88acc8d65d7b2a6b74": "An empty search result means no existing skill matches your custom loom inspection format, so the next step is to create one yourself. I haven't looked anywhere beyond the result you supplied, so I can't say whether a skill exists under a different name or location.\n\n**What to do next**\n\n1. **Gather the format definition.** A reconciliation skill is only as good as its description of the format. Collect:\n - A spec or schema for the loom inspection records (fields, types, units, required vs. optional).\n - 3-5 real sample files, including at least one messy or edge-case example.\n - Any version differences between older and newer exports.\n\n2. **Define what \"reconcile\" means for you.** Decide which of these applies, since each leads to a different skill:\n - Matching inspection records against another source (e.g. production orders, batch/lot IDs, or machine logs).\n - Merging duplicate or conflicting inspection entries.\n - Converting the custom format to a standard one and checking nothing is lost.\n - Flagging discrepancies for human review rather than auto-resolving them.\n\n3. **Write the skill.** A good first version is a `SKILL.md` with:\n - A short description that states when it should trigger (e.g. \"use when comparing or reconciling loom inspection files\").\n - The format rules and field meanings.\n - Matching keys and tolerance rules (e.g. how close counts as a match for measurements or timestamps).\n - How to handle conflicts, missing data, and unknown fields.\n - The expected output, such as a discrepancy report with clear categories.\n - Optionally, a small helper script for parsing the format, plus your sample files as test cases.\n\n4. **Test it on your samples.** Run it against the known examples, check that the discrepancies it reports are the ones you expect, and tighten the rules where it guesses.\n\nIf you share the format details and what you're reconciling against, I can draft the `SKILL.md` for you in text here. Since you asked me not to use tools, I won't write any files; you'd copy it into place yourself.", "da45445fd6dd5ddc3ed16027d971f2a2632d6a305ab235e3d022301aaeab9c97": "**Next question:** What language or framework are you testing (e.g., TypeScript/React, Python, Go), and what kind of testing do you need: unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, or performance?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `npx skills find testing`\n\nThat query is deliberately broad because nothing is known yet. Once you answer, I'd narrow it, for example to `react testing`, `playwright e2e`, or `pytest`. I'd also check install counts and source reputation before recommending anything. I haven't run the search or recommended any package.", "f0f64b93fda495bd22a3079650b42382cf17a96e73b48c8bd6bff4752b0cd986": "**Next question:** What language or framework is your project in (e.g., TypeScript/React, Python, Go), and what kind of testing do you want help with: unit tests, end-to-end/browser tests, API tests, or something else?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `npx skills find testing`\n\nThat's deliberately broad since nothing is known yet. Once you answer, I'd narrow it to something like `react testing`, `playwright e2e`, or `pytest`. I'd also check install counts and the source's reputation before recommending anything, so no package recommendation yet.", "8d3c81ed5b3399562365868e381642cb4ec76f30da7698aecad0af0ccb9099ba": "**Next question:** What language or framework is your project in, and what kind of testing do you need (unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, performance, or something else)?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `npx skills find testing`\n\nThat's deliberately broad because I don't know your language or test type yet. Once you answer, I'd narrow it, for example `react testing`, `playwright e2e`, or `python pytest`.\n\nI won't recommend a specific package yet. When we get there, I'd check install counts (prefer 1K+), source reputation, and the source repo's stars before suggesting anything. I'm holding off on running the search, as you asked.", "50970f761cdb11cd45df70e74249dd87af3d939b708368df95274d418e8febc7": "**Next question:** What language or framework is the code in, and what kind of testing do you need: unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, or performance?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `npx skills find testing`\n\nThat query is deliberately broad because I don't know your language or test type yet. Once you answer, I'll narrow it, for example to `react testing`, `playwright e2e`, or `python pytest`.\n\nI won't recommend a package until I've checked the install count and source reputation for the results. I haven't run anything, so I have no results to show yet.", "63f5029705c1bc74f9d12c53b3b9ad127294be6c5ac85157b9277698f57b5027": "**Next question:** What language (and runtime/framework, if any) is the code you want to test in, and what kind of testing are you after: unit, integration, end-to-end/UI, API, load/performance, or something else?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `best testing frameworks comparison unit integration end-to-end by language 2026`\n\nI'm holding off on recommending a package until I know the language and test type, since the right choice differs a lot between, say, Python unit tests, JavaScript browser tests, and Go load tests.\n\nIf you'd like to answer quickly, any of these helps:\n- Language and version\n- What you're testing (a library, web app, REST API, CLI, etc.)\n- Whether you already use a test runner or CI setup", "b46b405c959e283ad7660d2ce44cf140d26bb3229b7b7cec2a84b033cfaab9c7": "**Next question:** What language (and runtime/framework, if any) is your code in, and what kind of testing do you want to do: unit, integration, end-to-end/UI, API, performance/load, or something else?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `best testing frameworks comparison unit integration end-to-end`\n\nI'm holding off on recommending a package until I know the language and test type, since any pick now would be a guess. Once you answer, I'll narrow the query (for example, adding the language and test type) and give a concrete recommendation.", "8ac583df9a874ba8b7be1bf5eefec936ea825406fecf0419952abf670ec0e7c4": "**Next question:** What programming language is your project in, and what kind of testing do you want to do (e.g., unit, integration, end-to-end/browser, API, load/performance, property-based, or security testing)?\n\n**Provisional search query:** `best testing framework library comparison unit integration end-to-end 2026`\n\nI'm holding off on recommending a package until I know the language and test type, since the right choice depends heavily on both. Once you tell me, I can narrow the query (for example, adding the language name and test type) and suggest a specific package." }, "draws": [ { "id": "search", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "add1647177d15eed03e0d9e59abe86bc6caac199afb5e843e35ae61d35301502", "answer_sha256": "add1647177d15eed03e0d9e59abe86bc6caac199afb5e843e35ae61d35301502", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"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. Criterion 2 is weakened by invented thresholds and an unsupplied 'official-tier' claim.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (1), gives a plausible owner/repo and install command (3), and frames the choice as a judgment with a caveat (4). Misses (2): it invents thresholds, an 'official-tier' label, and a guessed URL beyond the supplied facts.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 3, and 4: selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as evidence-based. Missed criterion 2 because it adds unsupported claims (\\\"official-tier\\\" publisher, invented thresholds, a generated URL).\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command without running it, and frames the choice as a recommendation. It loses credit on criterion 2 because it asserts 'official-tier' and 'established' publisher status and invents its own popularity thresholds, which are not in the supplied evidence.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (1), gives a plausible owner/repo and install command (3), and frames the choice as evidence-based without claiming effectiveness (4). It loses credit on (2) for asserting an unsupplied 'official-tier' publisher status and a Next.js scope.\"}" ] }, { "id": "search", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "565495ca66a04969725265106dee5d001bafc37ba26c5a4c9b725a15a157b3f0", "answer_sha256": "565495ca66a04969725265106dee5d001bafc37ba26c5a4c9b725a15a157b3f0", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command without running it, and frames the choice as a recommendation. It misses criterion 2 because it invents thresholds (1K, 100 stars), calls the publisher 'official-tier,' and supplies an unverified skills.sh URL.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 3, and 4: selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a choice. Missed 2: adds an unsupplied 'official-tier' claim and a guessed skills.sh URL.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation; misses criterion 2 by inventing an 'official-tier' publisher claim and a guessed skills.sh URL.\"}", "{\"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 misses criterion 2: it adds an unsupplied 'official-tier' publisher claim and a guessed skills.sh 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 recommendation. It misses criterion 2: it invents an 'official-tier' publisher claim and arbitrary thresholds.\"}" ] }, { "id": "search", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "75e123a11d8ce7dafd5328305cf4879c764c0de82744eefba63029362f47d425", "answer_sha256": "75e123a11d8ce7dafd5328305cf4879c764c0de82744eefba63029362f47d425", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 3, and 4: it selects the React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation. It missed criterion 2 by inventing thresholds (1K, 100 installs/stars), calling vercel-labs official, and adding an unsupplied URL.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant react-best-practices skill, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames it as a choice. It misses criterion 2: it adds invented thresholds (1K, 100 stars) and an unsupplied skills.sh URL.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant react-best-practices skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames the choice as a recommendation; it misses full credit on evidence use by adding unsupplied claims (\\\"official\\\" source, invented thresholds) and a guessed URL.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4: selects the relevant React skill, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a choice. Misses 2: invents unsupplied thresholds (1K, 100 stars) and claims vercel-labs is official.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill, uses supplied install/star figures without inventing new ones, gives a plausible owner/repo install command, and frames it as a choice; but it adds a 'before you use it' aside and some unsupported threshold claims (1K+, 100 stars), so criterion 2 is arguably not fully clean.\"}" ] }, { "id": "search", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "efa8a4af8e51677bc3c5825a1e30a7a340420dd4f6d9a6c8245cd0913f011d09", "answer_sha256": "efa8a4af8e51677bc3c5825a1e30a7a340420dd4f6d9a6c8245cd0913f011d09", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses supplied install/star/provenance evidence without invented figures, gives plausible owner/repo and install command, and frames it as a choice; misses an explicit statement that effectiveness is unproven? It does say it hasn't verified coverage, so the shortfall is only partial on criterion 4.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React-specific candidate, uses only the supplied install and star figures, gives a plausible owner/repo with a skill install command, and frames the choice as unverified rather than proven effective.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant React skill, uses supplied install/star figures without inventing new ones, and gives a plausible owner/repo install command framed as a choice. Misses partly on criterion 4 in that it never says the recommendation is not proof of effectiveness; it only notes the skill is unverified.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill (1), uses supplied 1,200/800 vs 12/3 figures without inventing new numbers (2), gives owner/repo and a plausible skills install command (3), and frames it as a recommendation with caveats that effectiveness is unverified (4).\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo with an install command, and frames the choice as unverified rather than proven effective.\"}" ] }, { "id": "search", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "17a8ec68c2932d560c3aa297b49ecd2f2c9c6b063dc578b8143383f882516fd6", "answer_sha256": "17a8ec68c2932d560c3aa297b49ecd2f2c9c6b063dc578b8143383f882516fd6", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo with an install command, and notes popularity is not proof of quality.\"}", "{\"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, not proof of quality.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React best-practices skill, uses only the supplied install and star counts, gives a plausible owner/repo and install command, and states that popularity is not proof of quality.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the relevant 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 with a 'popularity isn't proof of quality' caveat.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React-relevant candidate, uses only supplied install/star figures without inventing new ones, gives owner/repo@skill install command, and frames the choice as reasoned rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}" ] }, { "id": "search", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "0631620455cd37378e4cc2f7a5092f78348b81a0eee2c0695e4bcd19fb618c3f", "answer_sha256": "0631620455cd37378e4cc2f7a5092f78348b81a0eee2c0695e4bcd19fb618c3f", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (criterion 1), uses only supplied install/star figures without inventing numbers (2), gives a plausible owner/repo@skill install command (3), and frames the choice as a recommendation rather than proof of effectiveness (4).\"}", "{\"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 with an install command, and frames the choice as based on available evidence rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React skill (1), uses supplied install/star figures without inventing new numbers (2), gives plausible owner/repo and install command (3), and frames it as a choice with caveats (4); the install command format is an assumption but is flagged as such, so all four criteria are met.\", \"criteria_check\": \"Criteria 1–4 each reasonably satisfied; partial deduction would be warranted only for stricter reading of criterion 3 since the CLI syntax was assumed.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React-relevant candidate, uses only supplied install and star figures, gives owner/repo@skill command with npx skills add, and frames the choice as a judgment rather than proof of effectiveness.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the React candidate (criterion 1), uses only supplied install and star figures without inventing new ones (2), gives the owner/repo@skill install command (3), and frames the choice as reasoned preference with a caveat that popularity isn't proof (4).\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "e29c47c9febd538e00eca35f97d6d6d791093f2d2775db257c77bb2699cd7bbc", "answer_sha256": "e29c47c9febd538e00eca35f97d6d6d791093f2d2775db257c77bb2699cd7bbc", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers direct reconciliation help, and suggests both a broader search and creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the empty search found no matching skill, invents no package or download count, offers direct reconciliation help, and suggests both a broader search and creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states the search found no match), 3 (offers direct reconciliation help), and 4 (suggests a broader search and creating a skill). Misses criterion 2: it presents an unverified `npx skills init` scaffold command as if it were real.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four points: it says the empty search found no skill, invents no package or download count, offers direct reconciliation help, and suggests both a broader search and creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets points 1, 3, and 4: it states the search found no match, offers direct reconciliation help, and suggests a broader search or creating a skill. It invents no download count, but the unverified `npx skills init` scaffold command may count as an invented package under point 2.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "60f82c500b0da35f6b3a4372ecbdfe74ae2e94854b8a3f6fcc325ce0defc9262", "answer_sha256": "60f82c500b0da35f6b3a4372ecbdfe74ae2e94854b8a3f6fcc325ce0defc9262", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states no match found), 3 (offers direct help), and 4 (suggests broader searches and creating a skill); misses criterion 2 by presenting an unsupplied `npx skills init` scaffold command as fact.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States no skill was found, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the task, and suggests both a broader search and creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states no existing skill turned up (criterion 1), invents no package or download count (criterion 2), offers direct help with the custom task (criterion 3), and suggests creating a skill plus a broader targeted search (criterion 4).\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states no skill was found, invents no package or download counts, offers direct help with the loom task, and suggests a broader search and creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States no skill was found, avoids inventing download counts or packages, offers direct help with sample input, and suggests both broader searches and creating a custom skill.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "8eea6e5382a395fa0b2aa42defff5c8dadd468ed53ba74e6ebe6f793b4492000", "answer_sha256": "8eea6e5382a395fa0b2aa42defff5c8dadd468ed53ba74e6ebe6f793b4492000", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 3, and 4: it states no match was found, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and suggests creating a skill. Missed criterion 2: it invents an `npx skills init` scaffold command unsupported by the supplied facts.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states the search found no match), 3 (offers to draft SKILL.md), and 4 (recommends creating a skill). Missed criterion 2: 'npx skills init' presents an unverified CLI as if it exists.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4 (no match stated, offers help, suggests creating a skill), but misses criterion 2 by recommending an unsourced `npx skills init` package command.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states the empty search found no matching skill), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers to draft SKILL.md and reference outlines); criterion 4 is satisfied by suggesting creating a skill, so all four appear met, but the 'npx skills init' command is an unverified invented CLI detail, warranting a slight deduction.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search means no match, invents no download count or package, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill. The suggested npx command is a minor unverified detail.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 3, "generation_hash": "070b84edf8b5a97f273718a0893a5b0a34765e911d8eb81d714b2363a9a8d64b", "answer_sha256": "070b84edf8b5a97f273718a0893a5b0a34765e911d8eb81d714b2363a9a8d64b", "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 counts, offers direct help with the custom reconciliation, and suggests both a broader search and creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search matched nothing, offers direct help with the custom format, and suggests retrying with broader terms or creating a skill. It invents no download counts, but the unverified `npx skills init` command edges toward an invented package reference.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search found no match, invents no download counts or package details, offers direct help with the reconciliation, and suggests both a broader search and creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the search found no matching skill, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the custom reconciliation, and suggests both broader searches and creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met: it states no match was found, invents no package or counts, and offers direct help. Criterion 4 is met by suggesting broader searches and creating a skill. However, the response includes an unsupported claim that narrower niche terms 'often return nothing', and it suggests a specific npx command rather than only describing the option. Since the rubric awards per-criterion, the score is 1.0 if every criterion is fully satisfied; the score here reflects the ambiguous wording of criterion 1.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 4, "generation_hash": "5691a64781aeeefe760f11df88c7d7a69d246bf3cae1458bbaa6c1565a2f277b", "answer_sha256": "5691a64781aeeefe760f11df88c7d7a69d246bf3cae1458bbaa6c1565a2f277b", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states no match was found), 3 (offers direct help with the custom task), and 4 (suggests creating a skill); misses criterion 2 because the unverified `npx skills init` scaffold command is an invented invocation.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states no match found), 3 (offers direct help with the reconciliation), and 4 (suggests creating a skill). Misses criterion 2 because it invents an unverified `npx skills init` command and package.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 3, and 4: it states no match was found, offers direct help, and suggests creating a skill. It misses criterion 2 because the suggested `npx skills init` command is an invented tool not in the supplied facts.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States no existing skill turned up, invents no package or download count, offers direct help with the reconciliation, and suggests creating a skill, meeting all four rubric points.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states no existing skill was found (criterion 1), invents no package or download count (2), offers direct help with the custom reconciliation (3), and suggests creating a skill (4), satisfying all four criteria.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "6398b2f1b6a29d811bda23e72a9fcd6b88a0cdcbee17fbf455272d856ea8f773", "answer_sha256": "6398b2f1b6a29d811bda23e72a9fcd6b88a0cdcbee17fbf455272d856ea8f773", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search means no matching skill, invents no package or download count, offers direct drafting help, and recommends creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search means no existing skill matches, invents no package or download count, offers direct help drafting the skill, and suggests creating one instead of broadening the search.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (states the empty search means no existing skill covers the format), criterion 2 is met (no invented package or counts), and criterion 3 is met (offers to author and draft the skill directly). Criterion 4 is missed in its exact form: it proposes creating a skill but never suggests another targeted search, so it is only partly satisfied.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four criteria: states the empty search means no matching skill, invents no package or counts, offers concrete help drafting the format and rules, and recommends creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: states the search was empty, invents no package or counts, offers to draft the format reference and rules, and recommends creating a skill.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "c5551ad7446d1cae25aee4ce4c700557638585cbde9971e44844d5498fa77e94", "answer_sha256": "c5551ad7446d1cae25aee4ce4c700557638585cbde9971e44844d5498fa77e94", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states empty search means no existing skill covers the format), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers to draft SKILL.md directly); missed criterion 4 since it recommends creating a skill but does not suggest another targeted search, though it does say searching again is unlikely to help.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states empty search means no existing skill), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers direct help drafting SKILL.md); criterion 4 is partially met since it suggests creating a skill but not another targeted search, though it says searching again is unlikely to help.\"}", "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search means no matching skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill.\"\n}", "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states an empty search means no existing skill covers the format. Criterion 2 is met: no package or download count is invented. Criterion 3 is met: it offers to draft the SKILL.md if samples are pasted. Criterion 4 is missed: it recommends creating a skill but suggests no other targeted search, and says searching again is unlikely to help.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it states the search found no match, invents no package or download counts, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and suggests creating a skill.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "ba513b1eea51762f854388d34a0eb7946bd51ee2c6864f04065872098500114f", "answer_sha256": "ba513b1eea51762f854388d34a0eb7946bd51ee2c6864f04065872098500114f", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: it states the empty search means no existing skill matches, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill.\"}", "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: states the empty search means no matching skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill instead of searching further.\"\n}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: it states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the skill, and recommends creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill instead of searching further.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four rubric points: it states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill instead of searching further.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 3, "generation_hash": "f4da4264a1422ed3d6939aa5cab8b13a7c506db97f2c974811a3324566e5e356", "answer_sha256": "f4da4264a1422ed3d6939aa5cab8b13a7c506db97f2c974811a3324566e5e356", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states empty search means no existing skill covers the format), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers direct help drafting the skill); missed criterion 4 since it never suggests another targeted search, though it proposes creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the empty search means no existing skill matches, invents no package or download counts, offers to draft the custom skill, and recommends creating one, meeting all four criteria.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response states an empty search means no existing skill exists (criterion 1 partly, implied), invents no package or counts (criterion 2 met), offers direct help by listing needs and planned work (criterion 3 met), but suggests creating a skill rather than another targeted search, and does not explicitly say the search found no match in a clear statement; criterion 4 is met via skill creation, so score 0.75 if counted, but strictly 0.5 given ambiguity on criterion 1.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states empty search means no existing skill covers the format), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 3 (offers concrete help drafting the skill); criterion 4 is only partly met since it proposes creating a skill but never suggests another targeted search.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is missed: the response never states that the search found no match, it only says no existing skill covers the format. Criterion 2 is met: no package or download count is invented. Criterion 3 is met: it offers direct help by listing needs and a plan. Criterion 4 is met: it recommends creating a skill.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 4, "generation_hash": "5b2ba74d42c0723f268173d98f3434799597cdab90526d92788738812a3e3ef0", "answer_sha256": "5b2ba74d42c0723f268173d98f3434799597cdab90526d92788738812a3e3ef0", "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 SKILL.md and parser, and recommends creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response states the empty search found no existing skill, invents no package or counts, offers to draft the SKILL.md and parser, and recommends creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states the search found no match), 2 (invents no package or download count), and 4 (suggests creating a custom skill); criterion 3 is only partly met since it offers to draft the SKILL.md if the user shares samples, which is conditional help rather than direct help now.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"States the empty search found no existing skill, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md and parser, and recommends creating a custom skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (states search found no match), 2 (no invented package or download count), and 3 (offers to draft SKILL.md and parser); missed criterion 4 since it proposes creating a custom skill but does not suggest another targeted search.\"}" ] }, { "id": "missing", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 5, "generation_hash": "199282c620574975471105c871bde3ad4b047219802b9a88acc8d65d7b2a6b74", "answer_sha256": "199282c620574975471105c871bde3ad4b047219802b9a88acc8d65d7b2a6b74", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it states the empty search found no matching skill. Criterion 2 met: no package or download count is invented. Criterion 3 met: it offers to draft the SKILL.md directly. Criterion 4 met: it recommends creating a skill and notes a differently named one could exist, though it does not propose a concrete new search.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: states an empty search result means no matching skill. Criterion 2 met: invents no package or download count. Criterion 3 met: offers to draft the SKILL.md directly. Criterion 4 met: suggests creating a skill and checking other names or locations.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: says the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and recommends creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: states the search found no match, invents no package or download count, offers to draft the SKILL.md, and suggests creating a skill.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: states the empty search found no matching skill. Criterion 2 met: invents no package or download count. Criterion 3 met: offers to draft the SKILL.md directly. Criterion 4 met: suggests creating a skill itself and notes other names or locations could be searched.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "da45445fd6dd5ddc3ed16027d971f2a2632d6a305ab235e3d022301aaeab9c97", "answer_sha256": "da45445fd6dd5ddc3ed16027d971f2a2632d6a305ab235e3d022301aaeab9c97", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language and test-type questions, keeps the search query explicitly provisional, states no search was run, and names only testing-related examples rather than recommending unrelated packages.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language and test-type questions, labels the search query as provisional, and explicitly says no search was run or package recommended; named examples are related testing tools, not unrelated packages.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the query provisional and broad, states no search was run, and names no unrelated package to install.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: asks specific language and test-type questions, labels the query provisional, and states no search was run. Misses criterion 4 because it names pytest and playwright as narrowing examples before the language is known.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language/test-type question, labels the search query provisional, states 'I haven't run the search', and recommends no unrelated package; pytest and Playwright appear only as future query examples.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "f0f64b93fda495bd22a3079650b42382cf17a96e73b48c8bd6bff4752b0cd986", "answer_sha256": "f0f64b93fda495bd22a3079650b42382cf17a96e73b48c8bd6bff4752b0cd986", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks a specific question about language and test type. Criterion 2 met: search is labeled provisional. Criterion 3 missed: it says 'npx skills find testing' as the query, and does not claim a search ran, so this is met too. Criterion 4 missed: it names specific packages (react testing, playwright, pytest) as narrowing suggestions, though not as install recommendations.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language and test-type questions, keeps the search query explicitly provisional, does not claim a search was run, and recommends no unrelated package.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query as provisional and broad, makes no claim that a search ran, and recommends no installs or unrelated packages.\"}", "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, keeps the search provisional, and claims no search was run. It loses credit on criterion 4 because it names pytest and playwright as possible follow-up queries, though it recommends no package.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the single search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no unrelated package; named tools appear only as future narrowing options.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "8d3c81ed5b3399562365868e381642cb4ec76f30da7698aecad0af0ccb9099ba", "answer_sha256": "8d3c81ed5b3399562365868e381642cb4ec76f30da7698aecad0af0ccb9099ba", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the query as provisional, states no search was run, and recommends no package; named tools appear only as example query terms.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search provisional, says it is holding off on running the search, and recommends no unrelated named package.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search explicitly provisional, states no search was run, and recommends no unrelated named package (only example queries, not installs).\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search explicitly provisional, does not claim a search was run (says it is holding off), and recommends no unrelated package.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search provisional, explicitly says the search isn't run, and recommends no package; it only names query examples.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "with_skill", "draw_index": 3, "generation_hash": "50970f761cdb11cd45df70e74249dd87af3d939b708368df95274d418e8febc7", "answer_sha256": "50970f761cdb11cd45df70e74249dd87af3d939b708368df95274d418e8febc7", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the query as provisional, and states no search was run. The named tools appear only as future search-query examples, not recommendations.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the query as provisional and broad, and states no search was run. It names no unrelated package; the npx query is the find-skills step itself.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language and test-type question, keeps the query explicitly provisional, states nothing was run, and recommends no package; the pytest/Playwright mentions are only example query terms.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific language/test-type question, labels the search query provisional, makes no claim of having run a search, and recommends no package; named tools appear only as future examples.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks specific language and test-type questions, labels the search query as provisional and broad, states nothing was run, and names no unrelated package to install or recommend.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 0, "generation_hash": "63f5029705c1bc74f9d12c53b3b9ad127294be6c5ac85157b9277698f57b5027", "answer_sha256": "63f5029705c1bc74f9d12c53b3b9ad127294be6c5ac85157b9277698f57b5027", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no named packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type (criterion 1), labels the search query as provisional (criterion 2), makes no claim that a search was run (criterion 3), and recommends no named package (criterion 4).\"}", "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the search query provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages.\"\n}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, makes no claim that a search was run, and recommends no named package.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks specific language and test-type questions, labels its search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and recommends no named packages, meeting all four criteria.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 1, "generation_hash": "b46b405c959e283ad7660d2ce44cf140d26bb3229b7b7cec2a84b033cfaab9c7", "answer_sha256": "b46b405c959e283ad7660d2ce44cf140d26bb3229b7b7cec2a84b033cfaab9c7", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four rubric criteria.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, makes no claim that a search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks a specific question about language and test type with concrete options. Criterion 2 met: labels the query 'provisional' and says it will be narrowed later. Criterion 3 met: no claim that a search was run. Criterion 4 met: recommends no named package.\"}", "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the search query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"\n}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search explicitly provisional, does not claim a search was run, and recommends no unrelated named package.\"}" ] }, { "id": "scope", "mode": "baseline", "draw_index": 2, "generation_hash": "8ac583df9a874ba8b7be1bf5eefec936ea825406fecf0419952abf670ec0e7c4", "answer_sha256": "8ac583df9a874ba8b7be1bf5eefec936ea825406fecf0419952abf670ec0e7c4", "status": "measured", "judge_outputs": [ "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, labels the query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four criteria.\"\n}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type (criterion 1), labels the search query as provisional (2), claims no search was run (3), and recommends no unrelated named package (4).\"}", "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks a specific question about language and test type, keeps the search as a provisional query, does not claim a search was run, and recommends no unrelated package; all four rubric criteria are met.\"}", "{\"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 names no packages.\"}", "{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"The response asks a specific language and test-type question, labels the query as provisional, claims no search was run, and names no packages, meeting all four rubric points.\"\n}" ] } ] }