SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BF azure-content-safety

Expert knowledge for Content Safety in Foundry Control Plane development including troubleshooting, best practices, decision making, architecture & design patterns, limits & quotas, security, configuration, integrations & coding patterns, and deployment. Use when using Content Safety APIs, Docker containers, text blocklists, media provenance, or groundedness checks, and other Content Safety in Foundry Control Plane related development tasks. Not for Azure Content Understanding in Foundry Tools (use azure-content-understanding), Azure Security (use azure-security), Azure Sentinel (use azure-sentinel), Azure Defender For Cloud (use azure-defender-for-cloud).

MicrosoftDocs/Agent-Skills Agent Skills author: MicrosoftDocs CC-BY-4.0 1 file body ≈ 1 605 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 12 d ago

Expert knowledge for Content Safety in Foundry Control Plane development including troubleshooting, best practices, decision making, architecture & design…

As a process F 34/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: security.md

IntegrationDockerAzureInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
F
34/100
No process to follow
References files that are not bundled: security.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
For the model run — optional
  • 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 · 0

✓ No critical or high findings

Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: security.md

Process rating: all ten parameters 34/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: security.md
  • 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: security.md
  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
  • 50Steps. 2 steps
  • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1605 tokens
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

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
  • +3No numbered steps or checklist
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +4No input/output examples
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
  • +3Description length 664: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 12 headings

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.