BB simplepractice
Read a SimplePractice Client Portal through the simplepractice-mcp server — upcoming appointments, invoices/statements/superbills/receipts, balance and saved cards, paperwork waiting to be signed, and practice announcements. Use when the user asks about their therapy or healthcare appointments, what they owe a practice, a superbill for insurance, or forms their provider has sent them.
Read a SimplePractice Client Portal through the simplepractice-mcp server — upcoming appointments, invoices/statements/superbills/receipts, balance and saved…
As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- 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
-
high Concealment
en-hide-from-userskill-card.md:35Instruction to hide actions from the userMitigation: Report only what the portal returns; do not infer that no portal invoices means no balance, and do not tell the user they can cancel unless the portal policy and flags support it.
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 71/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2026 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
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)
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 387: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.