본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

scf-prescreen-checker

Simulate the SCF team's manual prescreen on a Build Award submission — a completeness and eligibility check applied to every full submission before panel review. Checks completeness, Stellar integration, eligibility, budget issues, and common disqualifiers. Use when reviewing a draft Build Award submission for readiness before it goes to the SCF round.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md5.8 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

SCF Prescreen Checker

Overview

Simulates the SCF prescreen that every Build Award submission goes through before it reaches the review panel. The prescreen is a manual completeness and eligibility check by the SCF team — it confirms your submission is complete, reviewable, and ready, not whether your idea is strong. This skill identifies issues that would get flagged at prescreen so you can fix them first.

How Prescreening Works

Every Build Award submission goes through prescreening before it reaches the review panel — referred and non-referred submissions alike; a referral confers no prescreen exemption. The prescreen is a qualitative, manual check by the SCF team that confirms the submission is complete, reviewable, and meets the core eligibility criteria. It is not a judgment of the strength of your idea, and the SCF team may reach out with suggested edits so you can improve the submission before it is sent to the panel.

The most common prescreen issues:

  1. Incomplete applications — Missing sections, unanswered fields, broken links
  2. No Stellar integration — Project could work on any chain or doesn't use Stellar at all
  3. Ineligible teams or proposals — Sanctioned jurisdictions, duplicate submissions, ineligible project types
  4. Vague or incoherent proposals — Submission doesn't clearly describe what's being built

Prescreen Simulation

Run through each check. For each item, report: PASS, FLAG (potential issue), or FAIL (likely prescreen failure).

1. Completeness Check

CheckWhat to Verify
Project descriptionIs there a clear description of what's being built?
Problem statementIs the problem being solved articulated?
Target audienceIs the intended user or market defined?
Technical approachIs there any technical detail beyond a concept?
Team informationAre team members named with roles?
DeliverablesAre deliverables listed for each tranche?
BudgetIs a budget provided with any breakdown?
TimelineAre estimated dates or durations included?
LinksDo all provided links actually work? Test every one.

FAIL condition: Any core section is entirely missing or blank. FLAG condition: A section exists but is vague, minimal, or incomplete.

2. Stellar Integration Check

CheckWhat to Verify
Stellar mentionedDoes the submission explicitly reference Stellar?
Specific capabilitiesDoes it name specific Stellar features (Soroban, SEPs, anchors, asset issuance)?
Essential vs optionalWould this project work equally well without Stellar?
Technical specificsAre there technical details about how Stellar is used?
On-chain componentIs there an on-chain element, or is Stellar only mentioned in passing?

FAIL condition: Stellar is not mentioned, or the project has no meaningful Stellar dependency. FLAG condition: Stellar is mentioned but feels peripheral or interchangeable with other chains.

3. Eligibility Check

CheckWhat to Verify
Project typeIs this a project type the SCF funds (software, infrastructure, protocol)?
Duplicate submissionIs this the same project submitted under a different name?
Prior fundingIf previously funded, has the team delivered on past awards?
Budget rangeIs the budget within the Build Award range (up to $150K)?

FAIL condition: Ineligible project type or clear track mismatch. FLAG condition: Borderline eligibility or unclear track fit.

4. Quality Threshold Check

CheckWhat to Verify
CoherenceDoes the submission tell a coherent story from problem to solution?
SpecificityAre claims specific and concrete, or vague and generic?
Technical depthIs there enough technical detail to evaluate the approach?
Budget proportionalityIs the budget roughly proportional to scope?
Writing qualityIs the submission comprehensible?

FAIL condition: Submission is incoherent, entirely generic, or clearly AI-generated boilerplate. FLAG condition: Low specificity or thin technical detail.

5. Red Flag Scan

  • Budget over $150K without prior SCF award
  • Large marketing line items
  • No technical deliverable in MVP milestone
  • Team members have no verifiable identity or history
  • Project description copied from another submission
  • Claims of partnerships with no evidence
  • Token launch as a primary deliverable
  • No Soroban or on-chain component at all

Output Format

## Prescreen Simulation: [Project Name]

### Overall: [LIKELY PASS / AT RISK / LIKELY FAIL]

### Completeness
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [List any missing or incomplete sections]

### Stellar Integration
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Is Stellar essential or peripheral?]

### Eligibility
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Any eligibility concerns]

### Quality Threshold
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Specificity, coherence, depth concerns]

### Red Flags
- [List any triggered red flags]

### Prescreen Risk Assessment
[1-2 sentence summary]

Scoring Logic

  • LIKELY PASS — No FAILs, at most 1 FLAG
  • AT RISK — No FAILs, but 2+ FLAGs
  • LIKELY FAIL — Any FAIL in Completeness, Stellar Integration, or Eligibility

Reference Links

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Agentic and machine-to-machine payments on Stellar. Covers x402 (HTTP 402 paid APIs via OZ Channels facilitator, fee-sponsored clients) and MPP (Machine Payments Protocol) in both Charge mode (per-request SAC) and Channel mode (off-chain commits, high-frequency). Defaults to USDC (SEP-41 SAC) on `stellar:testnet`/`stellar:pubnet` (CAIP-2). Use when selling a paid API to AI agents, building an x402 client, or designing a payment-channel architecture for high-frequency agent traffic.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

assets

무료

Stellar Assets (classic) + trustlines + Stellar Asset Contract (SAC) bridge to smart contracts. Covers asset issuance, distribution, authorization flags, clawback, regulated assets, trustline management, and the SAC interop layer that exposes classic assets as SEP-41 contract tokens. Use when tokenizing real-world assets, issuing stablecoins, managing trustlines, or bridging classic assets to smart contracts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Benchmark stellar-build skills to measure quality and the lift from optimization. Use when the user says "bench my skills", "bench-skills", "benchmark skills", "did optimization help", "measure my skills", "stellar-loop bench", or wants to quantify whether /optimize-skills actually improved things. Held-out eval prompts scored by an LLM judge, reproducible with fixed seeds. Fully local.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Facilitate interactive brainstorming sessions using diverse creative techniques and ideation methods. Use when the user says help me brainstorm or help me ideate.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Technical documentation specialist and knowledge curator. Use when the user asks to talk to Bri or requests the tech writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

stellar-zk/stellar-zk42026년 10월 21일 업데이트

stellar-zk의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고