CC visual-edit
Open and collaboratively edit a running local app in Design, with shared fallback previews and source handoff. Use when the user asks to inspect, share, or edit a real local app in Design.
Open and collaboratively edit a running local app in Design, with shared fallback previews and source handoff.
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: templates/design
The same skill appears in 2 more places: agent-native, agent-native
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:280Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)AGENT_NATIVE_BRIDGE_TOKEN="$BRIDGE_TOKEN" npx @agent-native/core@latest design connect --url http://loca…173 --root . --daemon
quoted
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 7666 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/design - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 103): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: templates/design
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7666 tokens
- 100Steps. 53 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 17 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 188: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 53 items
- +4Has examples (12 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 66.