Protocol implementer review

Skill jasontang-ai/acp/skills/protocol-implementer-review

ACP is a reusable democratic coordination primitive for discussion under load. Relay is the reference implementation used to validate that primitive in practice.

Install

npx -y skills add jasontang-ai/acp --skill protocol-implementer-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use this skill to review whether an external implementation or adapter follows ACP protocol semantics and discovery expectations.

SKILL.md

3.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

What this skill is for

Use this skill when an external adopter, SDK user, or second surface needs protocol-oriented review.

Constitutional purpose

Keep interoperability honest by separating protocol compatibility from local convenience names, README optimism, or adapter-specific drift.

Failure modes targeted

Protocol drift
Compatibility overclaiming
Competing naming layers
Missing conformance or discovery evidence

When to use it

Reviewing an adapter or starter kit.
Checking external implementation claims.
Preparing adopter feedback.

When not to use it

Do not use it to redesign ACP.
Do not use it for Relay-only UI QA.
Do not accept skill prose as protocol truth.

Inputs expected

Implementation or adapter path
Protocol bundle/discovery references
Conformance output when available
Claimed supported surfaces

Required evidence for valid use

Discovery or schema references sufficient to compare semantics
Claimed support boundary for the adopter or adapter
Conformance evidence when compatibility is claimed rather than merely explored

Preflight / prerequisites

Load protocol/discovery.json.
Load canonical schema and implementer guide.
Identify the adopter's claimed support level.

Workflow

Check discovery and schema references.
Review lifecycle and condition vocabulary.
Confirm conformance or fixture compatibility.
Identify gaps without expanding ACP semantics.

Decision rules / judgment criteria

External support must be stated precisely.
Canonical fields beat local convenience names.
Compatibility proof requires artifacts, not only README claims.

Escalation rules

Escalate when the implementation changes lifecycle meanings, omits conformance evidence, or introduces a competing naming layer.

Available scripts

scripts/smoke.mjs: emits the protocol review checklist.

Produced artifacts

Implementer review notes
Compatibility gaps
Conformance recommendation

Allowed claims

That compatibility appears supported, unsupported, or unverified under the provided evidence
That a local field or lifecycle name drifts from ACP semantics
That more evidence is required before public compatibility claims are made

Forbidden claims

That an adopter is ACP-compatible based only on README language
That local convenience names automatically become protocol truth
That skill prose can redefine schema semantics

Human override points

Spec-level compatibility approval
Maintainer review of disputed lifecycle or field meanings
Manual decision on whether a public compatibility note is acceptable

Outputs

Implementer review notes
Compatibility gaps
Conformance recommendation

Failure handling

If conformance cannot run, record the blocker and avoid compatibility claims.

Trust / safety notes

This skill protects ACP as an open protocol. It should make adopter gaps clear without overstating maturity.

Composition notes

Use after SDK/adopter starter runs and before public compatibility claims.

Examples to inspect next

Read examples/casebook.md for adopter review cases.

Evaluation hooks

Run scripts/smoke.mjs, npm run conformance:check, and npm run skills:audit.