AC data-boundary
DataGate parses untrusted CSV or JSON through a deterministic tool boundary before model analysis. Use for requests like "analyze this CSV", "summarize this JSON", or "inspect this export" when raw file text should not go straight into model context.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice, progress reporting
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 text contains phrases like "ignore previous instructions" or "you are now…". That is an attempt to hijack the agent: it may break your rules, the system limits or company policy.
An honest skill does not need them: state the role and the rules directly without overriding other instructions. Otherwise catalog scanners and corporate filters will block the listing.
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Instruction override
en-ignore-previousreferences/output-schema.md:105Instruction-override phrase ("ignore previous instructions") (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"value": "ignore previous instructions",
quoted -
medium Instruction override
en-ignore-previousSKILL.md:88Instruction-override phrase ("ignore previous instructions") (quoted — discussed, not commanded)The bundled parser uses conservative string heuristics for phrases such as "ignore previous instructions", "system prompt", "developer message", and shell-like exfiltration patterns. These heuristics
quoted
Files scanned: 5. 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 60/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Failures and branches. 4 branches
- 85Steps. 34 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 963 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 250: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 34 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 99.