CC owner-supplied-material-check-free
甲供材台账与分包领用逐项核对，领用数量 = 进场数量 − 退库数量、领用金额 = 领用数量 × 单价、结算抵扣金额 = 领用金额，逐行复算并做合计勾稽与重复材料行、空缺与负值检测，每条结论引用台账原文行号。触发词包括 甲供材对不上、分包领用核对、甲供材抵扣金额、超领扣款、退库没冲减。
甲供材台账与分包领用逐项核对，领用数量 = 进场数量 − 退库数量、领用金额 = 领用数量 × 单价、结算抵扣金额 = 领用金额，逐行复算并做合计勾稽与重复材料行、空缺与负值检测，每条结论引用台账原文行号。触发词包括 甲供材对不上、分包领用核对、甲供材抵扣金额、超领扣款、退库没冲减。
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.
- For Hermes the description must be one sentence under 60 characters; move the conditions to a "When to Use" section.
- 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 Bash
Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 142 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - warning
description-no-whenneither description nor a "## When to Use" section says when to use the skill - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "slug" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "displayName" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "display_name" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "display_name_en" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "description_zh" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "description_en"
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. 27 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 768 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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 142: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 27 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.