BC cortex-backtest
Cortex 量化策略回测引擎。聚宽风格策略代码，支持日线回测，与聚宽平台完全对齐。触发场景：用户提及 Cortex 回测、策略回测、聚宽风格策略、回测引擎、量化策略开发、策略验证、Cortex 首次设置、Cortex 配置。
Cortex 量化策略回测引擎。聚宽风格策略代码，支持日线回测，与聚宽平台完全对齐。触发场景：用户提及 Cortex 回测、策略回测、聚宽风格策略、回测引擎、量化策略开发、策略验证、Cortex 首次设置、Cortex 配置。
As a process C 55/100 · 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 skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-privilegeSKILL.md:117Privilege escalation / world-writable permissionssudo cp /opt/cirt/etc/cortex.conf.default /opt/cirt/etc/cortex.conf
Files scanned: 5. 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 55/100
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 39 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3612 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (17 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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)
- +3Description length 113: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 30 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 39 items
- +4Has examples (21 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.