CC sandbox-lifecycle
The lifecycle gate for a local Codespace-equivalent sandbox. Routed to when the user invokes /ca-sandbox:sandbox to pull an untrusted repo into an ephemeral, host-FS-isolated Docker container, or any of the interaction commands (/ca-sandbox:sandbox-shell, /ca-sandbox:sandbox-exec, /ca-sandbox:sandbox-cp, /ca-sandbox:sandbox-destroy) against an existing box. Five gated phases — pre-flight, clone+build, isolated run, interact, teardown. The load-bearing invariant is structural: untrusted code in the box can never reach the host filesystem (no bind mount, no docker socket, never --privileged, cap-drop ALL, non-root, read-only root). Network defaults to offline; egress out is host-initiated only. Every object is labeled ca.sandbox=1 and torn down on exit.
The lifecycle gate for a local Codespace-equivalent sandbox.
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting
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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
frontmatter-yamlSKILL.md: the frontmatter is not valid YAML (YAML parse error: Nested mappings are not allowed in compact mappings at line 2, column 14: description: The lifecycle gate for a local Codespace-equivalent sandbox. Route… ^ ); fields were read line by line. The usual cause is a colon inside an unquoted value
Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 32 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2397 tokens
- 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 (6 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
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 761: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 32 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.