[AndyNemmity]

Define obviously validation? What is the signal that tells you one is reasonable vs another?

I find the only way to do that is to look at it, if it passes some visual tests, try it, and then a/b test if it's any better than without it.

[theptip]

Some sort of eval. Eg TermBench, implemented in Harbor.

It’s an insane amount of effort to build shareable, reusable, comprehensive evals, hence why so almost all skills are stuck in the “vibes” phase.

That said I think it’s quite easy to skim/intuit these sort of skills and do horizontal gene transfer into your own vibes-based system. If you use the skills regularly you can construct a cheap personal eval that is a lot easier to maintain and use it to compare a new skill/plugin. Just things like “please write a paper on <my personal unpublished thesis>” is a good starting point here. You get a good feel for whether a skill is better than vanilla by running it a couple times and watching the failure modes.

[AndyNemmity]

Yeah, I think we're in a phase honestly where you shouldn't use anyone elses skills, and you should instead point your stuff at a repo with skills, have it really read it, and then ask what of value there is to potentially rewrite in your style based on your preferences.

I have a complex setup with a lot of things based around what I do. I don't know how anyone could reasonably get their head around any of it. It's a research project in itself.

So I tell people, please don't use it. Just point your claude code at it, and see if there's anything useful for you.

[bisonbear]

Agree, it's impossible to tell if someone else's workflow works with your codebase without actually trying it, which takes time/tokens. I've been thinking about how to make running quick, directional evals easier / more efficient to give more confidence in using / developing skills. Basically, how do we go from vibes to data?

[apwheele]

So yes a/b broadly speaking is what I was saying (test cases and can show it is actually better).

Even this repo just the "b" showcase, showing the outputs as is (with no clear documentation how those were generated, is it headless in a CI pipeline somewhere?), is not good, https://github.com/Imbad0202/academic-research-skills/tree/m....

[AndyNemmity]

I run a lot of a/b testing. But I'm not sure showing it actually communicates all that much. Since these are non deterministic systems, even showing you an a/b test from when i made the decision a month ago, doesn't really mean a whole lot.

I agree we need more clear indications of value, I don't quite understand how to legitimately do that in a fair, and honest way.