BC yoga-pose-cuc
中国传媒大学瑜伽精品课（赵晓琳老师）瑜伽体式知识库。当用户询问瑜伽体式相关问题、体式大全、具体体式名称（如战士二式、平板支撑、蛇式、骆驼式、下犬式、猫弓背式、虎式、新月式等），或提到瑜伽动作要领、发力部位、梵文名称、体式起源故事等内容时触发。提供专业、温暖、有文化底蕴的瑜伽体式解答。
中国传媒大学瑜伽精品课（赵晓琳老师）瑜伽体式知识库。当用户询问瑜伽体式相关问题、体式大全、具体体式名称（如战士二式、平板支撑、蛇式、骆驼式、下犬式、猫弓背式、虎式、新月式等），或提到瑜伽动作要领、发力部位、梵文名称、体式起源故事等内容时触发。提供专业、温暖、有文化底蕴的瑜伽体式解答。
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 instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
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 Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/query.sh:11Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s "${url}" -H "xc-token: ${XC_TOKEN}" -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/query.sh:5Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)XC_TOKEN="${NOCO…bm3}"quoted
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 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. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 46 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 537 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
- -41 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 142: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 46 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.