{
"name": "friskeval",
"description": "Frisk your skill catalog for routing collisions and scope overclaim before you ship a new skill. Triggers automatically when you are about to report a coding task done and your diff added or changed a SKILL.md (or on \/friskeval). Two skills whose descriptions overlap fight for the same prompt, and a security skill that claims another's domain silently misroutes — so the agent picks the wrong skill and the user never knows. friskeval builds a TF-IDF model of every skill description, flags near-duplicate pairs and skills that carry another's discriminative vocabulary, checks that each trigger prompt still routes to its owner, and refuses to say \"done\" while a new skill collides with one already in the catalog."
}
friskeval — routing linter for a skill catalog
When you add a skill to a catalog, its description is the only thing the agent
reads to decide when to fire it. Add a second skill whose description overlaps,
and the two silently compete for the same prompts — the router picks one, the user
never sees the other, and no test catches it because nothing crashed. This is worst
in a security catalog, where descriptions are structurally alike ("frisk your X
for Y before you ship") and a skill that drifts into a neighbour's domain misroutes
real audits. friskeval is the check the agent runs on the catalog itself.
When to run
Automatically, when you are about to report a task done and your diff added or
changed a SKILL.md (a new skill, or an edited description).
On demand when the user types /friskeval.
What it looks at
Only the skill descriptions in the catalog — the frontmatter name +
description of every SKILL.md, plus an optional cases.json of trigger prompts.
It does not read or grade skill bodies; routing is decided by descriptions, so that
is all it needs. Deterministic, offline, no tokens.
The process
Build the corpus — tokenize every description (light stem, drop stopwords),
weight the skill name 2x, compute TF-IDF across the catalog.
Collision — cosine-similarity every pair of descriptions. ≥0.75 is an error
(two skills are near-duplicates), ≥0.5 a warning (drifting toward overlap).
Scope overclaim(security catalogs) — derive each skill's discriminative
terms (rare across the catalog) and flag any other skill whose description carries
≥50% of them: skill A is promising to cover skill B's territory.
Trigger routing — for each positive prompt in cases.json, the owning skill
must rank in the top-k (default 3); each negative prompt must NOT rank #1 with a
real score. A #1 at score ~0 is an off-topic prompt nobody owns — not a failure.
What to do with findings / output
Do the safe, mechanical thing yourself — when a collision or overclaim is a
wording problem, rewrite the newer skill's description to name its own domain and
drop the borrowed vocabulary, then re-run.
Escalate a genuine scope conflict — two skills that really do the same job.
Describe the overlap, offer to merge them or narrow one, ask which.
Never invent a problem. A catalog that passes all four checks is clean — say so
and stop.
The hard rule
Do not say "done" after adding or editing a skill while its description collides with
(cosine ≥0.75) or overclaims (≥50% of the domain terms of) a skill already in the
catalog.
Output format
friskeval — <N> skills · <clean | M issue(s)>
<symbol> <label> <skillA> ~ <skillB> <metric> → <fix>
✓ <what was clean>
<closing line: what the user must decide before this is finished>
