AC google-voice
Google Voice web-client automation and MCP integration from HAR captures. Use when reverse-engineering voice.google.com.har or call_voice.google.com.har, listing/reading/exporting received Google Voice SMS threads/records from messages URLs or itemId values, sending Google Voice text messages with explicit approval, starting outbound Google Voice calls with explicit approval, injecting approved TTS/local audio into calls, recording call audio, or configuring/using the bundled Google Voice HAR MCP server in OpenClaw.
As a process C 55/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-privilegescripts/google-voice-call-audio-engine.js:11Privilege escalation / world-writable permissions (detector / deny-list definition; string literal in code, not executed)const browser = await puppeteer.launch({ executablePath, args: ['--no-sandbox','--disable-setuid-sandbox','--use-fake-ui-for-media-stream','--use-fake-device-for-media-stream',`--use-file-for-fake-auddetectorcode literal -
low Exfiltration
exfil-secret-in-urlscripts/google-voice-mcp.js:26Credential passed in a URL query string (normal for some APIs — verify the host is the intended service) (placeholder value)function endpoint(path) { return `https://clie…com${path}?alt=…&key=… }placeholder -
low Exfiltration
exfil-secret-in-urlscripts/google-voice-sms-records.js:16Credential passed in a URL query string (normal for some APIs — verify the host is the intended service) (placeholder value)function endpoint(path){return `https://clie…com${path}?alt=…&key=…placeholder
Files scanned: 10. 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 55/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 9 mutating operations with no state check
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1537 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- -31 of 6 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 521: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.