What 1968 skill reviews show

How the verdicts fall

A directory that recommends everything recommends nothing. This is the actual spread.

• Strongly recommended4 · 0.2%

  As well evidenced as a documentation review can get, with no uncontrolled major risk; still check your environment and data sensitivity.

• Recommended262 · 13.3%

  Generally reliable with disclosed limitations; trial as directed and keep a rollback path.

• Use with care1345 · 68.3%

  Useful, but reliability, evidence or controls still have material gaps.

• Not recommended353 · 17.9%

  Current benefit does not outweigh risk or uncertainty.

• Blocked4 · 0.2%

Where skills lose points

Each dimension scored as a percentage of its own maximum, so a 25-point dimension and a 15-point one are comparable. Lowest first — this is where the ecosystem is weakest, not where we mark hardest.

• Evidence / 1535.2%
• Verifiability / 1037.7%
• Reliability / 2039.8%
• Effectiveness / 1539.9%
• Convention / 1558.9%
• Maintenance / 1059.2%
• Trust / 2559.3%
• Adaptability / 1561.9%
• Utility / 2062.0%
• Usability / 1072.0%
• Safety / 2573.3%

How sure we are

Every review states its own evidence level. Low means the assessment rests mainly on reading the author's material rather than reproducing behaviour. Publishing this distribution is uncomfortable and it is the point.

• Medium1 · 0.1%
• Low1967 · 99.9%

Reviews the upstream has outrun

Each review is pinned to the exact commit it examined. When the repository moves on, the review does not silently follow it.

1248 reviews (63.4%) are now behind their upstream repository. Those profiles say so on the page.

855 reviewed skills (43.4%) come from a verified official publisher; the rest are community repositories.

Mean score by category

Licence coverage

What you are agreeing to when you install one. An unstated licence is not a permissive one.