requires is empty although the runnable body requires live peer/options reads and quoteSend calls (lines 39-41). The authoring guide explicitly requires the network capability for reading a chain (skill-authoring/SKILL.md:151-155). Consequently the catalog permits dispatch to an offline contributor who cannot complete the required route checks, even when all addresses and route facts are supplied.

Declare network, or explicitly accept pinned offline RPC evidence and provide it as a required input.

The worked example never loads config/routes.json or calls an integration/health adapter; it sets peers and options directly on a test-only mock and asserts those same values. This contradicts SKILL.md:43 and leaves the main safety requirement untested: a UI-visible route whose source peer is missing. The NoPeer test likewise uses EID 303, which is absent from the supplied UI inventory, and asserts only a mock revert rather than inventory reconciliation or send readiness.

The example can therefore show all tests passing with a broken delivered route configuration.

This criterion depends on every displayed route and on-chain state, but the acceptance contract requires only a checklist, configuration and tests. It does not require saving the authoritative UI inventory or a per-route observed peer/options/quote result, including failures, in the delivered files.

Although the body asks for quote inputs and block context, that requirement is not reflected in the acceptance criteria, and the worked example supplies only instructions and synthetic mock quotes. A reader cannot establish completeness against an external UI or distinguish a performed on-chain check from instructions to perform it. This is a material gap for the requested files-only review with checks: none; the structural judge cannot recover omitted evidence.

A network worker receives this reference through reads: skill:layerzero-oft, but example/ is not part of that payload. The guide explicitly says only the skill, REFERENCE.md and scripts/*.mjs travel and that other relative links do not (skill-authoring/SKILL.md:227-237). The supplied catalog compiler likewise serializes referenceContent and scripts only (check-skill.mjs:384-393).

Thus the worked-example pointer is usable in the authoring repository but broken in the actual Claude Code/Codex job. Include the necessary example material in a supported pinned input or remove the worker-facing dependency on this relative directory.

The requested experimental disclaimer was added to the README but is absent from the repository CLI. The CLI has no --help handling, so the explicitly requested help surface raises a file error instead of displaying usage and the experimental warning. Handle --help and include the exact commissioned-test/no-warranty wording there; this does not require creating a site where none exists.