BF academic-paper-workflow
透明可审核的 AI 学术论文写作完整工作流。7 阶段(研究→写作→引用→诚信检查→同行评审→终稿验证→格式输出)+ 8 技能协同(文献检索、深度研究、学术写作、引用格式化、诚信检查、同行评审、终稿验证、期刊格式)。使用场景:撰写 SCI 综述/实验论文、基金申请书、研究报告。核心特点:透明、可审核、可追溯、无 AI 幻觉。
As a process F 35/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: assets/journal-templates/
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 invisible characters, encoded commands or comments hidden from readers but visible to the model. What you read differs from what the agent sees.
Remove invisible characters (they usually sneak in through copy-paste) and encoded strings: no catalog will pass them. Instructions for the model must be readable by a human too.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 Obfuscation
uni-mixed-script-wordreferences/integrity-check-rules.md:14Word mixing Latin and Cyrillic letters (homoglyph obfuscation) (1 occurrence)1. 瀹氫綅澹扮О锛坈laim锛?2. 妫€鏌ユ槸鍚︽湁寮曠敤鏀寔
-
medium Obfuscation
uni-mixed-script-wordreferences/skill-orchestration.md:188Word mixing Latin and Cyrillic letters (homoglyph obfuscation) (1 occurrence)- 浣跨敤鐗堟湰鎺у埗锛圙it锛夌鐞嗕慨鏀瑰巻鍙?
Files scanned: 9. 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") - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/journal-templates/
Process rating: all ten parameters 35/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: assets/journal-templates/
- 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
- 100Steps. 147 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1988 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
- -249 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- -32 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 162: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 30 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 147 items
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.