BC inspector
Run sentence-level traceability verification on a Data2Story blog (verify.py -> verifier.json), then emit the in-page Inspector panel (the reader-facing runnable verifier) + the verify/ artifacts (verify_map.json, run_cells.json, the reproducible notebook, cell_registry.json). Mostly Python; the runnable layer recomputes each computation in-browser from its inlined data and grades it against the published output, while the bundled notebook re-executes from raw data. Use verify.py at Stage 6.4 (after validate.py, before the Critic) and generate_viewer.py at Stage 7 after the Programmer authors the verify/ files and pastes the panel shell. Triggers: a built index.html plus the role JSONs exist, or you need the traceability map / the in-page runnable verifier.
Run sentence-level traceability verification on a Data2Story blog (verify.py -> verifier.json), then emit the in-page Inspector panel (the reader-facing…
As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: references/notebook_template.ipynb
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
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: Bash(*) Read Write
Files scanned: 15. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/notebook_template.ipynb
Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/notebook_template.ipynb
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 24 steps
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2852 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low The response is described with custom markup (12 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)
- -31 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 767: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +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: 82.