BC markdown-mermaid-writing
Writes scientific Markdown documentation and Mermaid diagrams for workflows, relationships, timelines, and schemas. Provides syntax references, document templates, accessibility guidance, and version-aware rendering checks. Use when a user requests Markdown, Mermaid, or a text-based structural diagram; quantitative scientific figures require suitable plotting tools.
Writes scientific Markdown documentation and Mermaid diagrams for workflows, relationships, timelines, and schemas.
As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, 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 · 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: Read Write Edit Bash
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvtemplates/project_documentation.md:77Reads a .env filecp .env.example .env
Files scanned: 38. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 166): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 31 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3866 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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)
- -212 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 368: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.