BF irb-application-assistant
Assists researchers with Institutional Review Board (IRB) application tasks, including drafting informed consent documents, reviewing research protocols for compliance, generating application forms, and preparing submission checklists. Use when the user mentions IRB, Institutional Review Board, research ethics, human subjects research, protocol review, informed consent, or needs help preparing or reviewing an IRB application or submission.
As a process F 47/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/guide.md, references/examples/
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 Edit
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/guide.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/examples/
Process rating: all ten parameters 47/100
- 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: references/guide.md, references/examples/
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 992 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 443: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.