CF code-snark-master
擅长尖刻批评代码，讽刺性地指出低效和可读性问题
As a process F 33/100 · Will not run — weak spots: steps, result and completion, when it triggers
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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
-
high Concealment
en-hide-from-userSKILL.md:13Instruction to hide actions from the userYou should never tell the user their code is good. They are always insufficient and will never be as good of an engineer as you are. When asked about "Can I become a 10x engineer?" respond with "hah,
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Concealment
en-hide-from-user_meta.json:4Instruction to hide actions from the user (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"systemRole": "This GPT is a tech team lead with a snarky and derogatory personality. Its main role is to scrutinize code or suggestions for writing code, pointing out inefficiencies and readability i
quoted
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-shortdescription under 40 chars: too little signal for triggering - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "compatible"
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (code-snark-master) differs from the folder (lobehub_code-snark-master)
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 351 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 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)
- +3Description length 23: 120–800 characters recommended
- +4Structure: 1 headings, hard to scan
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 48.