No. It cannot replace the official ASD-STE100 standard or a formal compliance review. It is a lightweight rewriting skill for agent-facing output, not an ASD-STE100 certification tool.

• The README explicitly says that the project does not reproduce ASD’s approximately 900-word approved dictionary. It applies the underlying principle of using the plainest available word consistently instead.
• Rules that depend on the ASD dictionary are handled as advisory, so the skill does not perform complete vocabulary compliance validation.
• The linter checks only a limited set of structural patterns. It does not verify semantic equivalence between the original and rewrite or prove that requirement strength stayed unchanged.
• The stated scope focuses on agent-to-agent messages, tool descriptions, error messages, and system prompts. It does not define a formal evidence or certification workflow for aerospace, medical, or industrial-safety documentation.

No. It is suitable for limited structural checks, but not as a complete ASD-STE compliance gate, an official dictionary validator, or a semantic-preservation checker.

• The README lists deterministic checks for semicolons, a short set of soft phrasal verbs, nominalizations, marketing adjectives, passive voice, present-perfect forms, long sentences, synonym rotation, and dangling conjunctions in supported list items.
• It explicitly does not check noun-cluster length, does not know phrasal verbs outside its configured list, and never flags hedges or modality.
• The project does not reproduce ASD’s official approximately 900-word approved dictionary. It therefore cannot replace the real standard or a formal compliance review.
• A zero-violation result only means that the configured structural checks found no issue. It does not show that the text is unambiguous or that a rewrite preserved meaning.

Yes. Strict mode is specifically intended for tool descriptions, error messages, and procedures, and it prioritizes one action per sentence, explicit actors, and clear conditions.

• The “What This Skill Does” section states: “Strict covers procedures, error messages, and tool descriptions.”
• The skill checks ambiguous wording, passive voice, multiple instructions, long sentences, nominalizations, and complex tenses sentence by sentence. It keeps longer wording when shortening could remove facts, conditions, or scope qualifiers.
• Its default output is only the rewritten text. You can request “show the diff” or “explain the changes” when rule-level review is needed.
• It does not prove that requirement strength or meaning was preserved. You must still check words such as “must,” “may,” and “should,” as well as negation and exceptions, and it does not replace tool-contract validation.

Yes. Start with STE-flavored mode. It keeps sentence discipline without imposing the fixed-vocabulary lockdown of Strict mode, making it a better fit for READMEs, PR descriptions, and explanatory prose.

• The mode definition in the README explicitly assigns STE-flavored to “READMEs, PR descriptions, and explanatory prose.”
• It retains sentence discipline but does not enforce a fixed vocabulary, so necessary technical terminology has more room to remain unchanged.
• The project is intended for English that machines or non-native readers must parse directly, but it is not built for creative writing, marketing copy, or content whose value depends on voice, nuance, or metaphor.
• The default output is only the rewritten text. Add “show the diff” when you need to inspect which rules were applied.

It depends. The design explicitly aims to preserve conditions and scope, but the project does not guarantee semantic equivalence or unchanged requirement strength.

• The README says the rewrite does not drop any “fact, condition, or scope qualifier.” If shortening would lose required precision, it keeps the longer wording and flags the trade-off.
• However, the linter checks structural patterns only. It does not compare the original with the rewrite or prove that meaning was preserved.
• The stated scope includes agent-to-agent messages, inter-agent instructions, system prompts, tool/function descriptions, and error messages, so your text type is directly targeted.
• Generated rewriting can still misunderstand domain terms, negation, exceptions, or modal verbs. A zero-violation linter result is therefore not evidence that a tool call is semantically safe.

Yes. It is lightweight enough for project-scoped adoption because installation uses npx skills or Git, while the runtime consists of a Claude Code skill, rule references, examples, and an independent Python script rather than a server or database.

• The Quick Install section provides npx skills add danyuchn/asd-ste100-skill from the project root and says that it installs the skill for the current project.
• The Python linter runs directly from the command line, for example with python scripts/ste-lint.py --baseline 41 SKILL.md.
• Project data identifies Python as the main language and MIT License as the license. The README also provides npx skills update for later updates.
• However, the README does not provide a ready-made CI integration, editor plugin, or service API. Direct adoption therefore means installation and command-line checking; repository-specific automation must be built separately.