BF design-panel
Multi-persona design review. Dispatches 4 UX/UI designer personas in parallel against a live web app, then converges on the highest-impact changes via cross-persona voting. Outputs a ranked report and a machine-readable fix plan. Pairs with /design-review for shipping the top findings. Use when asked to "design panel", "multi-persona design review", "designer panel", "panel review", or after major design milestones.
As a process F 53/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../../<evidence-pack-path>/screenshots/home_desktop.png
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
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Bash Read Write Edit Glob Grep AskUserQuestion Agent
Files scanned: 11. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 8554 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../<evidence-pack-path>/screenshots/home_desktop.png
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../<evidence-pack-path>/screenshots/home_desktop.png
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8554 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 91 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 14 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 17 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (14 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 419: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 45 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 91 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (20 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.