DC ticketmaster
Search Ticketmaster events and seats with pricing. Returns Buy-now links to Ticketmaster checkout; it cannot complete a purchase itself.
Search Ticketmaster events and seats with pricing.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: <redirect_url>
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- 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
-
high Concealment
en-hide-from-userSKILL.md:145Instruction to hide actions from the user9. `priceRanges[]` from search-events is often absent or incomplete. Do not tell the user "no pricing available" based on search-events alone. Use `top-picks` to get current pricing.
Files scanned: 2. 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: <redirect_url> - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 112): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: <redirect_url>
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 100Steps. 17 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2409 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 136: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 17 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.