BB ideation
Front stage for /data2story-pro when the reader has no dataset — only a vague idea. Converges the idea into a concrete, data-backed topic through a sparring-partner dialogue (anti-sycophantic, feasibility-pressure-tested), then acquires a REAL dataset through find-data, with a user checkpoint after each. Returns a validated DATA_DIR for the main pipeline. Not a newsroom role — runs upstream of Detective, before any dataset exists. Real data only; never a reason to synthesize data.
Front stage for /data2story-pro when the reader has no dataset — only a vague idea.
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice
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: Bash(*)allowed-tools: Skill Read Write Bash(*) Glob Grep AskUserQuestion
Files scanned: 3. 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 68/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 15 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1775 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (9 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 485: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 11 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 15 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.