CB 1c-web-test
Тестирование 1С через веб-клиент - автоматизация действий в браузере. Используй когда пользователь просит проверить, протестировать, автоматизировать действия в 1С через браузер
Тестирование 1С через веб-клиент - автоматизация действий в браузере.
As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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 skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Bash Read Write Glob Grep
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/package-lock.json:17High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (detector / deny-list definition)"integrity": "sha5…uWm+fFRcIOgKBMiOBP+eXiy…9ab+DDKA==",
detector
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5546 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 75/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5546 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 27 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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)
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- -31 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +3Description length 177: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 56 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 27 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (33 code blocks)
- +2Bilingual instructions (RU + EN)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 62.