BB autoskill
Analyzes user-requested Screenpipe history windows to detect repeated research workflows, match existing scientific skills, and stage new skill drafts or composition recipes for review. Requires a reachable Screenpipe HTTP API, normally on localhost:3030. Detection and embedding inference run locally; the selected LLM receives redacted app/title cluster summaries and matched skill descriptions. Use only when the user explicitly asks to analyze their recent work and propose skills.
Analyzes user-requested Screenpipe history windows to detect repeated research workflows, match existing scientific skills, and stage new skill drafts or…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches
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
- 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
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash
Files scanned: 15. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 22 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3855 tokens
- 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 11 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
- +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
- -33 of 10 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 485: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 22 items
- +4Has examples (12 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.