BF review-workflow
代码工作流编排助手。将变更背景收集、代码审查、调试修复、提交信息生成、Git 操作串联为完整工作流。 当用户提到"帮我看代码"、"review 一下"、"准备提交"、"生成 commit"、"走一下提交流程"时触发。 依次加载并调用四个子 Skill(基于当前路径)： - references/review-preferences/SKILL.md（审查偏好规则） - references/code-reviewer/SKILL.md（代码审查） - references/parallel-debugging/SKILL.md（调试修复） - references/git-commit/SKILL.md（提交信息生成） 即使用户只说"提交代码"或"走提交流程"，也应主动触发此 Skill。
代码工作流编排助手。将变更背景收集、代码审查、调试修复、提交信息生成、Git 操作串联为完整工作流。 当用户提到"帮我看代码"、"review 一下"、"准备提交"、"生成 commit"、"走一下提交流程"时触发。 依次加载并调用四个子 Skill(基于当前路径)： -…
As a process F 31/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/review-preferences/SKILL.md, references/code-reviewer/SKILL.md, references/parallel-debugging/SKILL.md
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
- 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 · 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: Bash Read Agent
Files scanned: 1. 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") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "scripts"
Process rating: all ten parameters 31/100
- 0Tools and files. 4 referenced file(s) missing: references/review-preferences/SKILL.md, references/code-reviewer/SKILL.md, references/parallel-debugging/SKILL.md
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 15 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4293 tokens
- 100Steps. 69 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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
- +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
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 357: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 42 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 69 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.