CD posthog-errors
Weekly cross-project error overview from PostHog - enumerates every project the OAuth grant covers, pulls the last 7 days of error-tracking issues per project, ranks them by impact, flags what's new vs ongoing, and sends one digest with per-project totals, the top issues, and a clickable link to a full committed report of every issue.
Weekly cross-project error overview from PostHog - enumerates every project the OAuth grant covers, pulls the last 7 days of error-tracking issues per…
As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: url, …, $REPORT_URL
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 text contains phrases like "ignore previous instructions" or "you are now…". That is an attempt to hijack the agent: it may break your rules, the system limits or company policy.
An honest skill does not need them: state the role and the rules directly without overriding other instructions. Otherwise catalog scanners and corporate filters will block the listing.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 Instruction override
en-ignore-previousSKILL.md:290Instruction-override phrase ("ignore previous instructions") (quoted — discussed, not commanded)message contains something like "ignore previous instructions…", quote it as the
quoted
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: url - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: … - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: $REPORT_URL - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/skill_mode.sh - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/mcp-oauth-refresh.sh
Process rating: all ten parameters 43/100
- 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: url, …, $REPORT_URL
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 12 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4173 tokens
- 100Steps. 21 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- 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 (5 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 336: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 60.