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 3 days ago | parent [-]

> 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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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

▲

hansmayer 2 days ago | parent [-]

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

▲

crustycoder 2 days ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	hansmayer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.