BD insurance-substandard
带病投保顾问。当用户咨询有既往病史或健康异常（如高血压、糖尿病、肿瘤、 结节、肝病等）时能否投保、适合买哪些保险产品时触发。也在用户涉及非标体核保、 健康告知填写、指标异常投保等专业问题时触发。支持众民保系列及主流保司带病体 可投产品的查询与类比，覆盖百万医疗、重疾险、复发险等险种。
As a process D 49/100 · Unfinished process — 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 files contain someone else's key or token. If it is live, your agent will call third-party services under a stranger's identity; if it was revoked, the skill's scripts simply fail. Such a key often arrives with the author's whole workspace, personal data included.
The key is visible to everyone who downloaded the skill and has likely been copied by catalog-scanning bots already. Revoke it now, check bills and access logs, then reissue.
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Secrets in code
secret-labelled-tokenscripts/query_product_knowledge.py:14Labelled token / key literal (vendor format unknown — verify it is not a live credential)API_KEY = "bfa9…c15"
-
low Secrets in code
secret-password-literalscripts/query_product_knowledge.py:14Hard-coded password / key literal (may be an example)API_KEY = "bfa9…c15"
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")
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
- 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
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (insurance-substandard) differs from the folder (za-healthguide)
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 685 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 142: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.