|
| 1 | +# Skill Validation Report |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +**File:** skills/restore-checkpoint/SKILL.md |
| 4 | +**Skill:** restore-checkpoint |
| 5 | +**Validated:** 2026-05-12 |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +--- |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Overall Status: ✅ PASS |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +**Compliance Score:** 97/100 |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +--- |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Phase 1: Presence, Structure, And Frontmatter |
| 16 | +**Status:** ✅ PASS |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +### Findings: |
| 19 | +- SKILL.md exists with valid frontmatter. |
| 20 | +- Required fields (`name`, `description`, `version`, `allowed-tools`) are present and syntactically valid. |
| 21 | +- `allowed-tools` correctly scoped to `[Read]` — no writes during restore. |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +### Recommendations: |
| 24 | +- None. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +--- |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +## Phase 2: Field Constraints And Naming Parity |
| 29 | +**Status:** ✅ PASS |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +### Findings: |
| 32 | +- `name` matches folder name and naming constraints. |
| 33 | +- Description is trigger-appropriate and limits use to session-start only. |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +--- |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## Phase 3: Instruction Quality And Completeness |
| 38 | +**Status:** ✅ PASS |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +### Findings: |
| 41 | +- Workflow is sequenced correctly: validate → compare → surface conflicts → resolve → confirm → proceed. |
| 42 | +- Confirmation gate is explicit: no task work begins until user confirms restored state. |
| 43 | +- Conflict resolution logic and examples are externalised to `references/restore-rules.md`. |
| 44 | +- Instruction-file-wins default is explicitly stated. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +--- |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +## Phase 4: Resource References And Safety |
| 49 | +**Status:** ✅ PASS |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +### Findings: |
| 52 | +- `references/restore-rules.md` path is relative and resolves correctly. |
| 53 | +- Cross-reference to `skills/create-checkpoint/references/checkpoint-schema.md` is accurate. |
| 54 | +- Mid-session guard is explicit. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +--- |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +## Phase 5: Neutrality And Portability |
| 59 | +**Status:** ✅ PASS |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +### Findings: |
| 62 | +- Provider-neutral wording throughout. |
| 63 | +- Conflict prompt language is platform-neutral (no terminal-specific cues). |
| 64 | +- Invocation guidance covers all supported platforms. |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +--- |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +## Summary |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +### Strengths: |
| 71 | +- Read-only allowed-tools scope is a strong safety constraint. |
| 72 | +- Explicit instruction-file-wins default prevents silent state overwrite. |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +### Critical Issues (Must Fix): |
| 75 | +- None. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +### Warnings (Should Fix): |
| 78 | +- None. |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +### Enhancements (Optional): |
| 81 | +- Consider logging resolved conflicts to a short inline summary the user can copy for their records. |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +--- |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +## Recommendations |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +### Immediate Actions: |
| 88 | +1. None. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +### Suggested Improvements: |
| 91 | +1. Revalidate after any spec section 4.4.3 restore rule changes. |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +--- |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +**Validation completed successfully.** |
0 commit comments