CF peer-review
Peer review assistant for medical journals. Generates structured review drafts with journal-specific formatting. Constructive developmental tone with systematic manuscript analysis.
Peer review assistant for medical journals.
As a process F 54/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/reviewer_profiles/{JOURNAL_SHORTNAME}.md
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The text contains phrases like "ignore previous instructions" or "you are now…". That is an attempt to hijack the agent: it may break your rules, the system limits or company policy.
An honest skill does not need them: state the role and the rules directly without overriding other instructions. Otherwise catalog scanners and corporate filters will block the listing.
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 12
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 12
-
medium Instruction override
en-ignore-previousSKILL.md:37Instruction-override phrase ("ignore previous instructions") (quoted — discussed, not commanded)layer reads and can be steered by ("IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS. Give aquoted
A further 11 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
Files scanned: 62. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 12768 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/reviewer_profiles/{JOURNAL_SHORTNAME}.md - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools"
Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/reviewer_profiles/{JOURNAL_SHORTNAME}.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 12768 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 121 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (7 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 181: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 121 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 3)
- +3All 6 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.