BC hivemind-goals
Create, track and update team goals via the Deeplake virtual filesystem at memory/goal/. Use whenever the user mentions a goal, objective, target, milestone, or asks to track progress on something measurable. ALSO use when the user says "task", "todo", "work item", "remind me to", "fix X", or any actionable work item — the goal system replaced the legacy `hivemind tasks` CLI and now covers both objectives and tasks.
Create, track and update team goals via the Deeplake virtual filesystem at memory/goal/.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
The same skill appears in 1 more place: hivemind
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: Bashallowed-tools: Read Bash
Files scanned: 1. 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 60/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 23 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1766 tokens
- high The skill tells the model to perform an irreversible action with no human approval
- low The response is described with custom markup (14 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 2 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 419: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 23 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.