CC start-gsd-4
Learn GSD lesson 4 through its file-backed planning and build workflow. Use when the student types /start-gsd-4.
The skill promises to deliver GSD lesson 4 through file-backed planning and build workflow. Description is sparse, one file total, no scripts. Checks found broken references to missing files—the instruction points to materials that aren't in the folder. Quality score 75 signals middling content, process score 53 hints at structural problems. Safety checks pass, no critical bugs.
In practice: student runs the command, skill loads, then hits gaps. The workflow lacks either files or their descriptions in the instruction. Install only if you're prepared to fill in the blanks yourself or treating this as a scaffold for your own content.
Learn GSD lesson 4 through its file-backed planning and build workflow.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: expense-splitter/
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 skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- 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 Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Bash AskUserQuestion Skill
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: expense-splitter/
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: expense-splitter/
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 100Steps. 29 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1615 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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)
- +3Description length 112: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.