Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperSkill

SuperSkill

by permanu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gate

Read-only

Validates specs or tickets for required fields, frozen state, hash integrity, and HEAD evidence, returning pass/fail with missing items before work proceeds.

Instructions

Deterministic evidence gate. Checks a spec (fields complete, frozen, hash intact) or a ticket (acceptance present, spec frozen and unchanged, evidence recorded at HEAD, review evidence when required). Returns pass/fail with the missing items.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoDirectory used for the git HEAD lookup
headNoOverride HEAD commit for the evidence check
targetYesSpec reference (NNN, NNN-slug, path) or ticket id (ticket-NNN)
projectNoProject slug (auto-detected if omitted)
workspace_pathNoAbsolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds value by disclosing that the check is deterministic, that it validates hash integrity and HEAD-pinned evidence, and that it returns pass/fail plus the missing items – a behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the identity/guarantee first, the checked conditions second, and the return shape last. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract ('pass/fail with the missing items'), and annotations cover safety. It leaves minor gaps – error behavior for an unknown target or how spec vs ticket mode is disambiguated – but is largely complete for a read-only validation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the NNN/slug/path and ticket-NNN formats. The description touches on 'HEAD' and 'evidence' concepts that loosely correspond to the head/cwd parameters but adds no format or override semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Deterministic evidence gate') and enumerates exactly what is checked for each of the two target types (spec: fields complete, frozen, hash intact; ticket: acceptance, frozen spec, evidence at HEAD, review evidence). This is far more specific than the sibling tools spec/tickets/evidence, which are storage-oriented rather than validation-oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The two target types imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to alternatives such as running the check manually via spec/tickets/evidence. Usage is implied by the target enumeration rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools