BB contract-redline-navigator
Compare draft agreements, highlight risky clause changes, and generate a negotiation checklist with plain-language explanations.
As a process B 72/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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 contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellREADME.md:68Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- 不使用 `curl|bash`、远程直灌、base64 混淆执行
quoted -
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellREADME.md:106Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- 高风险模式检查：未引入 `curl|bash`、远程管道执行、混淆载荷或私有 API 绑定
quoted -
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellSELF_CHECK.md:39Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- [x] 未发现 `curl|bash`
quoted
Files scanned: 8. 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")
Process rating: all ten parameters 72/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 35 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 556 tokens
- low 11 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)
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 128: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 35 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.