BB bug-audit
Comprehensive bug audit for Node.js web projects. Activate when user asks to audit, review, check bugs, find vulnerabilities, or do security/quality review on a project. Works by dissecting the project's actual code to build project-specific check matrices, then exhaustively verifying each item — not by running a generic checklist. Supports games, data tools, WeChat apps, API services, bots, and dashboards.
Comprehensive bug audit for Node.js web projects. Activate when user asks to audit, review, check bugs, find vulnerabilities, or do security/quality review on…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice
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 · 6
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 6
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/redblue.md:1Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)# Red Team / Blue Team Playbook
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/redblue.md:333Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)For EVERY red team finding, verify all 4 layers:
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityskill-card.md:30Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- [Red Team / Blue Team Playbook](references/redblue.md) <br>
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:129Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)## Phase 3: Red Team / Blue Team
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:192Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- `references/redblue.md` — Red team attack chains (universal + 6 project types) and blue team defense verification playbook for Phase 3.
A further 1 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
Files scanned: 6. 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 67/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 69 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2138 tokens
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)
- -229 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 410: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 69 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.