BF industrial-bid-compliance
工业领域招投标技术方案智能审查。上传技术方案文档，自动逐条对标国家/行业强制性标准进行合规审查，输出9维合规雷达评分+逐条审查清单+不合规整改建议+交互式HTML合规报告。覆盖设备采购/工程施工/技术服务三类工业招投标场景。
工业领域招投标技术方案智能审查。上传技术方案文档，自动逐条对标国家/行业强制性标准进行合规审查，输出9维合规雷达评分+逐条审查清单+不合规整改建议+交互式HTML合规报告。覆盖设备采购/工程施工/技术服务三类工业招投标场景。
As a process F 35/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: assets/report_template.html
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.
- 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 Edit Bash WebSearch WebFetch Grep Glob show_widget read_me present_files
Files scanned: 9. 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") - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/report_template.html - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "agent_created" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "location"
Process rating: all ten parameters 35/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: assets/report_template.html
- 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
- 100Steps. 73 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2614 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 13 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 112: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 46 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.