BC paper-originality-studio
当用户需要对中文或中英混排论文、开题、综述、摘要、引言、讨论、结论、专利交底书草稿等进行原创性优化、学术化改写、重复表达清洗、AI腔弱化、引用衔接修补、术语统一、段落重构、版本对比或生成逐段改写提示时使用本技能。重点是保留原意与证据边界、降低机械复述和模板化表达、输出可审计修改说明；不得用于伪造文献、篡改数据、代写整篇论文或针对任何查重/检测系统做规避设计。
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellREADME.md:181Downloads 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-shellSELF_CHECK.md:37Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- [x] 无 `curl|bash`
quoted
Files scanned: 19. 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 53/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 76 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 817 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 10 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -31 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 180: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 76 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 73.