CC vuln-tracker
One lifecycle poll over everything vuln-scanner produces - PR and advisory status, PVR triage transitions, and pending-disclosure aging, with a stars-secured impact headline and one action queue.
One lifecycle poll over everything vuln-scanner produces - PR and advisory status, PVR triage transitions, and pending-disclosure aging, with a stars-secured…
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
✓ Guard found no suspicious behaviour. 3 matches are attack strings quoted in this security skill's own documentation.
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
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 9697 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 63, 67): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 9697 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 85Steps. 110 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 7 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 195: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 35 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 110 items
- +4Has examples (22 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 57.