BD preflight-check
Pre-flight environment validator — checks that all required binaries, environment variables, and services are available before running other skills
As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — 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.
For the model run — optional
- 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 Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:158Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- **Supabase:** `curl -sf "$NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_URL/rest/v1/" -H "apikey: $NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_ANON_KEY" -o /dev/null && echo "ok"`
quoted -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:159Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (destination is a well-known publishing service; quoted — discussed, not commanded)- **Vercel:** `curl -sf "https://api.vercel.com/v2/user" -H "Authorization: Bearer $VERCEL_TOKEN" -o /dev/null && echo "ok"`
known servicequoted -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:160Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (destination is a well-known publishing service; quoted — discussed, not commanded)- **Cloudflare:** `curl -sf "https://api.cloudflare.com/client/v4/user/tokens/verify" -H "Authorization: Bearer $CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN" -o /dev/null && echo "ok"`
known servicequoted
Files scanned: 4. 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 43/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1741 tokens
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 147: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This is a legitimate preflight checker, but it can expose and save cloud credential values while validating the environment.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026