[crustycoder]

Is that based on your "deep understanding" of how LLMs work or have you actually tried it? If you watch the execution trace of a Skill in action, you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs - how could it possibly work any other way?

Skills are just textual instructions, LLMs are perfectly capable of spotting inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in them. Is that sufficient to create a good skill? No, of course not, you need to actually test them. To use an analogy, asking a LLM to critique a skill is like running lint on C code first to pick up egregious problems, running testcases is vital.

[hansmayer]

> you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs

I mean how do you know what does it exactly do? Because of the text it outputs?

[crustycoder]

"exactly this inspection" != "what does it exactly do"

[hansmayer]

Please read your own sentence again. Because you litterally said the opposite.

[crustycoder]

I'd tell you to read it again, but you seem to be struggling.

[hansmayer]

Did I write this: "you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs" ?

So, yeah - read what you wrote again.