AC blocking-io-guard
Ensure async-path backend code that could block the asyncio event loop is protected by a teeth-verified runtime anchor in tests/blocking_io/. Use when changing backend Python under app/, packages/harness/deerflow/, or scripts/, when running a blocking-IO triage round over the whole repo, or when a reviewer/CI asks for blocking-IO coverage. Runs a deterministic scan (changed-lines or full-repo), routes each candidate, drafts/extends an anchor, and proves it fails when the blocking IO regresses.
Ensure async-path backend code that could block the asyncio event loop is protected by a teeth-verified runtime anchor in tests/blockingio/.
As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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: 4. 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 54/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1557 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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 498: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.
In the sandbox Скрипты не запустились
The skill's scripts were run in a throwaway machine: no network, fake keys in the home directory, a tracer watching. We wrote down what they did. Reaching for the network or for secrets caps the technical grade at C; a quiet run adds no points.
Запущено 1 скрипт; каждому дали двадцать секунд, поддельный домашний каталог с ключами и сеть, в которой ничего нет.
Ни один не дошёл до работы — им не хватило зависимостей, аргументов или файлов. Это не отзыв о поведении: наблюдать было не за чем.
templates/anchor.template.py | не запустился: SyntaxError: expected '(' |
20 Oct 2026