!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation

Automation mode: Resolve modes.automation (project.local.yaml → project.yaml → default collaborative). Every AskUserQuestion call and every file write follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Skill Test

Validates .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md files for structural compliance and behavioral correctness. No external dependencies — runs entirely within the existing skill/hook/template architecture.

Four modes:

Mode	Command	Purpose	Token Cost
static	/skill-test static [name|all]	Structural linter — 7 compliance checks per skill	Low (~1k/skill)
spec	/skill-test spec [name]	Behavioral verifier — evaluates assertions in test spec	Medium (~5k/skill)
category	/skill-test category [name|all]	Category rubric — checks skill against its category-specific metrics	Low (~2k/skill)
audit	/skill-test audit	Coverage report — skills, agent specs, last test dates	Low (~3k total)

---

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Determine mode from the first argument:

• static [name] → run 7 structural checks on one skill
• static all → run 7 structural checks on all skills (Glob .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md)
• spec [name] → read skill + test spec, evaluate assertions
• category [name] → run category-specific rubric from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/quality-rubric.md
• category all → run category rubric for every skill that has a category: in catalog
• audit (or no argument) → read catalog, list all skills and agents, show coverage

If argument is missing or unrecognized, output usage and stop.

---

Phase 2A: Static Mode — Structural Linter

For each skill being tested, read its SKILL.md fully and run all 7 checks:

Check 1 — Required Frontmatter Fields

The file must contain all of these in the YAML frontmatter block:

• name:
• description:
• argument-hint:
• user-invocable:
• allowed-tools:

FAIL if any are absent.

Check 2 — Multiple Phases

The skill must have ≥2 numbered phase headings. Look for patterns like:

• ## Phase N or ## Phase N:
• ## N. (numbered top-level sections)
• At least 2 distinct ## headings if phases aren't explicitly numbered

FAIL if fewer than 2 phase-like headings are found.

Check 3 — Verdict Keywords

The skill must communicate a clear outcome. Accept any of:

• Gate / review verdicts — PASS, FAIL, CONCERNS, APPROVED, BLOCKED, COMPLETE, READY, COMPLIANT, NON-COMPLIANT
• Go / no-go verdicts — PROCEED, PIVOT, KILL, GO, NO-GO
• Severity scales — CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW. Audit skills rank findings by severity instead of issuing one verdict for the whole run.

FAIL if none are present and the skill produces an assessment — its description or body promises a review, audit, check, gate, or readiness judgement.

WARN (never FAIL) if none are present and the skill's output is an artifact or a value rather than a judgement. /settings is the reference case: it prints and writes configuration and has no verdict to give. Do not invent one to satisfy this check.

The narrow earlier list (gate verdicts only, hard FAIL) failed 5 of 74 skills for reasons that were not their fault — /prototype and /vertical-slice advertise PROCEED/PIVOT/KILL in their own descriptions, /adopt and /security-audit rank by severity, and /settings has no verdict by design. A linter that cries wolf on 7% of the corpus stops being read.

Check 4 — Collaborative Protocol Language

The skill must contain ask-before-write language. Look for:

• "May I write" (canonical form)
• "before writing" or "approval" near file-write instructions
• "ask" + "write" in close proximity (within same section)

WARN if absent (some read-only skills legitimately skip this). FAIL if allowed-tools includes Write or Edit but no ask-before-write language is found.

Check 5 — Next-Step Handoff

The skill must end with a recommended next action or follow-up path. Look for:

• A final section mentioning another skill (e.g., /story-done, /gate-check)
• "Recommended next" or "next step" phrasing
• A "Follow-Up" or "After this" section

WARN if absent.

Check 6 — Fork Context Complexity

If frontmatter contains context: fork, the skill should have ≥5 phase headings (## level or numbered Phase N headers). Fork context is for complex multi-phase skills; simple skills should not use it.

WARN if context: fork is set but fewer than 5 phases found.

Check 7 — Argument Hint Plausibility

argument-hint must be non-empty. If the skill body mentions multiple modes (e.g., "Mode A | Mode B"), the hint should reflect them. Cross-reference the hint against the first phase's "Parse Arguments" section.

WARN if hint is "" or if documented modes don't match hint.

---

Static Mode Output Format

For a single skill:

=== Skill Static Check: /[name] ===

Check 1 — Frontmatter Fields:    PASS
Check 2 — Multiple Phases:       PASS (7 phases found)
Check 3 — Verdict Keywords:      PASS (PASS, FAIL, CONCERNS)
Check 4 — Collaborative Protocol: PASS ("May I write" found)
Check 5 — Next-Step Handoff:     WARN (no follow-up section found)
Check 6 — Fork Context Complexity: PASS (8 phases, context: fork set)
Check 7 — Argument Hint:         PASS

Verdict: WARNINGS (1 warning, 0 failures)
Recommended: Add a "Follow-Up Actions" section at the end of the skill.

For static all, produce a summary table then list any non-compliant skills:

=== Skill Static Check: All 74 Skills ===

Skill                  | Result       | Issues
-----------------------|--------------|-------
gate-check             | COMPLIANT    |
design-review          | COMPLIANT    |
story-readiness        | WARNINGS     | Check 5: no handoff
...

Summary: 48 COMPLIANT, 3 WARNINGS, 1 NON-COMPLIANT, 1 NOT ASSESSED
Aggregate Verdict: N WARNINGS / N FAILURES / N NOT ASSESSED

NOT ASSESSED is a per-skill result here, not only an aggregate line. A skill whose file could not be read or parsed, or whose checks could not run, is reported as NOT ASSESSED with the reason — never omitted from the table and never counted as COMPLIANT. Ranked above COMPLIANT, below WARNINGS and NON-COMPLIANT.

And state the denominator. All 74 Skills in the header must be the number actually examined, not the number that exist: report [N] of [M] skills checked whenever they differ. A summary whose counts silently sum to less than its own title is the failure this skill is supposed to catch in others.

---

Phase 2B: Spec Mode — Behavioral Verifier

Step 1 — Locate Files

Find skill at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md. Look up the spec path from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml — use the spec: field for the matching skill entry.

If either is missing:

• Missing skill: "Skill '[name]' not found in .claude/skills/."
• Missing spec path in catalog: "No spec path set for '[name]' in catalog.yaml."
• Spec file not found at path: "Spec file missing at [path]. Run /skill-test audit to see coverage gaps."

Step 2 — Read Both Files

Read the skill file and test spec file completely.

Step 3 — Evaluate Assertions

For each Test Case in the spec:

1. Read the Fixture description (assumed state of project files)
2. Read the Expected behavior steps
3. Read each Assertion checkbox

For each assertion, evaluate whether the skill's written instructions, if followed correctly given the fixture state, would satisfy it. This is a Claude-evaluated reasoning check, not code execution.

Mark each assertion:

• PASS — skill instructions clearly satisfy this assertion
• PARTIAL — skill instructions partially address it, but with ambiguity
• FAIL — skill instructions would NOT satisfy this assertion given the fixture
• NOT ASSESSED — the assertion could not be evaluated at all: it names a fixture state the spec never defines, depends on runtime behavior no static read can settle, or references a file or section that does not exist. Rank it above PASS (an assertion nobody could evaluate has not been satisfied) and below PARTIAL and FAIL (an ambiguity somebody identified is more actionable than one nobody could reach). Do not resolve an unevaluable assertion to PASS because the skill "probably" handles it — that judgement is what the spec exists to replace.

For Protocol Compliance assertions (always present):

• Check whether the skill requires "May I write" before file writes
• Check whether the skill presents findings before requesting approval
• Check whether the skill ends with a recommended next step
• Check whether the skill avoids auto-creating files without approval

Step 4 — Build Report

=== Skill Spec Test: /[name] ===
Date: [date]
Spec: CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/[category]/[name].md

Case 1: [Happy Path — name]
  Fixture: [summary]
  Assertions:
    [PASS] [assertion text]
    [FAIL] [assertion text]
       Reason: The skill's Phase 3 says "..." but the fixture state means "..."
  Case Verdict: FAIL

Case 2: [Edge Case — name]
  ...
  Case Verdict: PASS

Protocol Compliance:
  [PASS] Uses "May I write" before file writes
  [PASS] Presents findings before asking approval
  [WARN] No explicit next-step handoff at end

Overall Verdict: FAIL (1 case failed, 1 warning)

Step 5 — Offer to Write Results

"May I write these results to CCGS Skill Testing Framework/results/skill-test-spec-[name]-[date].md and update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml?"

If yes:

• Write results file to CCGS Skill Testing Framework/results/
• Update the skill's entry in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml:
  • last_spec: [date]
  • last_spec_result: PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL

---

Phase 2D: Category Mode — Rubric Evaluation

Step 1 — Locate Skill and Category

Find skill at .claude/skills/[name]/SKILL.md. Look up category: field in CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml.

If skill not found: "Skill '[name]' not found." If no category: field: "No category assigned for '[name]' in catalog.yaml. Add category: [name] to the skill entry first."

For category all: collect all skills with a category: field and process each. category: utility skills are evaluated against U1 (static checks pass) and U2 (gate mode correct if applicable) only — skip to the static mode for U1.

Step 2 — Read Rubric Section

Read CCGS Skill Testing Framework/quality-rubric.md. Extract the section matching the skill's category (e.g., ### gate, ### team).

Step 3 — Read Skill

Read the skill's SKILL.md fully.

Step 4 — Evaluate Rubric Metrics

For each metric in the category's rubric table:

1. Check whether the skill's written instructions clearly satisfy the criterion
2. Mark PASS, FAIL, or WARN
3. For FAIL/WARN, identify the exact gap in the skill text (quote the relevant section or note its absence)

Step 5 — Output Report

=== Skill Category Check: /[name] ([category]) ===

Metric G1 — Review mode read:      PASS
Metric G2 — Full mode directors:   FAIL
  Gap: Phase 3 spawns only CD-PHASE-GATE; TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE absent
Metric G3 — Lean mode: PHASE-GATE only: PASS
Metric G4 — Solo mode: no directors:    PASS
Metric G5 — No auto-advance:       PASS

Verdict: FAIL (1 failure, 0 warnings)
Fix: Add TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, and AD-PHASE-GATE to the full-mode director
     panel in Phase 3.

Step 6 — Offer to Update Catalog

"May I update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to record this category check (last_category, last_category_result) for [name]?"

---

Phase 2C: Audit Mode — Coverage Report

Step 1 — Read Catalog

Read CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml. If missing, note that catalog doesn't exist yet (first-run state).

Step 2 — Enumerate All Skills and Agents

Glob .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md to get the complete list of skills. Extract skill name from each path (directory name).

Also read the agents: section from CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to get the complete list of agents.

Step 3 — Build Skill Coverage Table

For each skill:

• Check if a spec file exists (use the spec: path from catalog, or glob CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/*/[name].md)
• Look up last_static, last_static_result, last_spec, last_spec_result, last_category, last_category_result, category from catalog (or mark as "never" / "—" if not in catalog)
• Priority comes from catalog priority: field (critical/high/medium/low)

Step 3b — Build Agent Coverage Table

For each agent in catalog's agents: section:

• Check if a spec file exists (use the spec: path from catalog, or glob CCGS Skill Testing Framework/agents/*/[name].md)
• Look up last_spec, last_spec_result, category from catalog

Step 4 — Output Report

=== Skill Test Coverage Audit ===
Date: [date]

SKILLS (74 total)
Specs written: 72 (97%) | Never static tested: 74 | Never category tested: 74

Skill                  | Cat      | Has Spec | Last Static | S.Result | Last Cat | C.Result | Priority
-----------------------|----------|----------|-------------|----------|----------|----------|----------
gate-check             | gate     | YES      | never       | —        | never    | —        | critical
design-review          | review   | YES      | never       | —        | never    | —        | critical
...

AGENTS (49 total)
Agent specs written: 49 (100%)

Agent                  | Category   | Has Spec | Last Spec   | Result
-----------------------|------------|----------|-------------|--------
creative-director      | director   | YES      | never       | —
technical-director     | director   | YES      | never       | —
...

Top 5 Priority Gaps (skills with no spec, critical/high priority):
(none if all specs are written)

Skill coverage:  72/72 specs (100%)
Agent coverage:  49/49 specs (100%)

No file writes in audit mode.

Offer: "Would you like to run /skill-test static all to check structural compliance across all skills? /skill-test category all to run category rubric checks? Or /skill-test spec [name] to run a specific behavioral test?"

---

Phase 3: Recommended Next Steps

After any mode completes, offer contextual follow-up:

• After static [name]: "Run /skill-test spec [name] to validate behavioral correctness if a test spec exists."
• After static all with failures: "Address NON-COMPLIANT skills first. Run /skill-test static [name] individually for detailed remediation guidance."
• After spec [name] PASS: "Update CCGS Skill Testing Framework/catalog.yaml to record this pass date. Consider running /skill-test audit to find the next spec gap."
• After spec [name] FAIL: "Review the failing assertions and update the skill or the test spec to resolve the mismatch."
• After audit: "Start with the critical-priority gaps. Use the spec template at CCGS Skill Testing Framework/templates/skill-test-spec.md to create new specs."