BD docker-socket-proxy
Manage a remote Docker host via a Tecnativa docker-socket-proxy instance. Unlike raw Docker socket access (which is root-equivalent), docker-socket-proxy acts as a firewall: each API section is individually enabled or disabled via env vars, so the agent only gets access to what you explicitly allow. Requires docker-socket-proxy exposed over TCP. Covers the full Docker REST API surface: container lifecycle (list, start, stop, restart, kill, pause, unpause, rename, exec), inspection (logs, stats, top, changes), images, networks, volumes, Swarm, plugins, system info, and event streaming.
As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
frontmatter-yamlSKILL.md: the frontmatter is not valid YAML (YAML parse error: Nested mappings are not allowed in compact mappings at line 2, column 14: description: Manage a remote Docker host via a Tecnativa docker-socket-proxy in… ^ ); fields were read line by line. The usual cause is a colon inside an unquoted value - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 43/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 7 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 874 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (22 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 591: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 7 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 62.