BC automation-workflows
Design and implement automation workflows to save time and scale operations as a solopreneur. Use when identifying repetitive tasks to automate, building workflows across tools, setting up triggers and actions, or optimizing existing automations. Covers automation opportunity identification, workflow design, tool selection (Zapier, Make, n8n), testing, and maintenance. Trigger on "automate", "automation", "workflow automation", "save time", "reduce manual work", "automate my business", "no-code automation".
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, consistency
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
- 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 Broad scope
meta-agent-memory-dumpassets/templates/IDENTITY.mdAgent memory / workspace files bundled with the skill (4) — likely a workspace dump with personal data or tokensassets/templates/IDENTITY.md, assets/templates/MEMORY.md, HEARTBEAT.md, memory.md
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityboundaries.md:13Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)| Access patterns | What systems user has access to | Privilege escalation |
detector
Files scanned: 47. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (automation-workflows) differs from the folder (gwnechai)
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Failures and branches. 4 branches
- 85Steps. 62 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2439 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -48 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -39 of 9 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 512: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 62 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.