BA ship-pr-dev
Ship PR: credit-aware autonomous pull request readiness workflow. Use when the user asks to ship work, prepare a branch for review, create or update a PR, make CI green, clean up a branch before PR, or produce a PR a human can confidently merge. This skill may edit code, run checks, commit, push, create/update a PR, and iterate on CI, but it keeps Git ownership in the coordinator, delegates bounded work to cheaper host-native workers, uses review-code-dev v2 (Alibaba OCR delegation) as the only independent read-only review gate, waits for all visible latest-SHA CI to be green, runs capture-learning-tools report-only, and never merges.
Ship PR: credit-aware autonomous pull request readiness workflow.
As a process A 87/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting
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
- 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 Edit Write Glob Grep Agent
Files scanned: 13. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 127): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 87/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 29 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 28 steps
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3963 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
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)
- -32 of 4 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 642: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (5 of 5)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.