BC product-table-analyzer
商品表市场洞察分析。上传一张商品列表表格（CSV/Excel），自动从类目分布、标题词频、价格带、卖家品牌格局、卖点提炼、竞争度评估6大维度进行选品分析，生成交互式HTML可视化报告。适合运营导出的商品数据快速生成选品洞察。触发词：商品表分析, 选品分析, 市场洞察, 商品表格分析, 批量商品分析, 商品数据报告, product table analysis, 表格分析选品, 导出商品分析, 商品列表分析。
商品表市场洞察分析。上传一张商品列表表格（CSV/Excel），自动从类目分布、标题词频、价格带、卖家品牌格局、卖点提炼、竞争度评估6大维度进行选品分析，生成交互式HTML可视化报告。适合运营导出的商品数据快速生成选品洞察。触发词：商品表分析, 选品分析, 市场洞察, 商品表格分析, 批量商品分析, 商品数据报告…
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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: Read Write Bash Edit WebFetch WebSearch
Files scanned: 3. 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 "agent_created"
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 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
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 67 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 890 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 206: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 67 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.