BC consulting-delivery
咨询交付技能套件：CEO汇报、写报告、方案框架、标杆对比、桌面调研、访谈纪要、项目周报。 CEO汇报: 帮我写个给CEO的报告, 出个高管简报, 执行摘要, Steerco汇报; 写报告: 帮我写一份咨询报告, 帮我出个报告, 金字塔原理, 交付报告; 方案框架: 方案框架, Issue Tree, 方案设计; 标杆对比: 标杆对比, benchmarking, 差距分析, 对标分析; 桌面调研: 帮我调研一下这个行业, 帮我查下这个市场, 行业调研, 市场研究; 访谈纪要: 帮我整理访谈记录, 帮我写会议纪要, 专家访谈, 会议记录; 项目周报: 项目周报, 周报, 项目进展, status report。
咨询交付技能套件：CEO汇报、写报告、方案框架、标杆对比、桌面调研、访谈纪要、项目周报。 CEO汇报: 帮我写个给CEO的报告, 出个高管简报, 执行摘要, Steerco汇报; 写报告: 帮我写一份咨询报告, 帮我出个报告, 金字塔原理, 交付报告; 方案框架: 方案框架, Issue Tree, 方案设计…
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: Shellallowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Shell Edit Write
Files scanned: 10. 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")
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. 24 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1195 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 308: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (7 of 7)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 77.