AB carbon-defi
Use this skill when the user wants to create or manage on-chain maker trading strategies on Carbon DeFi. Triggers include: "place a limit order", "create a recurring strategy", "buy ETH at a specific price", "set up a DCA strategy", "manage my Carbon strategies", "pause/resume/reprice a strategy", "deposit or withdraw from a strategy", "full range liquidity", "provide liquidity and earn fees", or any mention of Carbon DeFi, maker orders, or on-chain automated trading strategies on Ethereum, Sei, Celo, TAC, or COTI.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, 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 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
- 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 Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(curlallowed-tools: Bash(curl *)
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenSKILL.md:56High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)**Native ETH.** Use address `0xEe…EeE`. Never WETH. ETH never requires approval.
quoted
Files scanned: 2. 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 65/100
- 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
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 56 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1772 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- 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
- +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 9 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 520: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 56 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.