BC wordpress-ultimate
Three env vars. One script. Your agent manages your WordPress site — and cannot quietly change it. Reads are free and new posts land as drafts; anything visitors would see (publishing, editing or trashing live content, uploading media, moderating comments) needs WP_ALLOW_PUBLISH=1 on that call, and plugins, themes, users, settings and any route the script does not know need WP_ALLOW_ADMIN=1. WP_URL is parsed strictly and credentials go only to that HTTPS host (pin it with WP_ALLOWED_HOSTS). Plugin install is code execution on your site and is named as such. Built for the TinkerClaw fork — github.com/globalcaos/tinkerclaw. See Permissions, Data Flow & Consent.
Three env vars. One script. Your agent manages your WordPress site — and cannot quietly change it. Reads are free and new posts land as drafts; anything…
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — 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: 6. 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") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "repository" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 50/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 29 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 28 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3722 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (18 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 667: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 28 items
- +4Has examples (15 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 77.