BB ship
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR.
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR.
As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions
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 · 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: Bash Read Write Edit Grep Glob AskUserQuestion
Files scanned: 1. 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 ≈ 5704 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 71/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5704 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 130 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 10 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 skill ranks results itself: that belongs to the system behind the tool, not the model
- low The response is described with custom markup (5 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
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 123: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 130 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 57.