CB topos
Evaluate and improve code with Topos. Use for complexity reduction, security checks, refactor verification, and PLATINUM/GOLD goals.
Evaluate and improve code with Topos.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting
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
- For Hermes the description must be one sentence under 60 characters; move the conditions to a "When to Use" section.
- 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-pipe-to-shellSKILL.md:42Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (documentation of a security skill)curl -fsSL https://docs.krv.ai/topos/install.sh | bash
security skill
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 132 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "homepage"
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 60Consistency. The Hermes dialect needs category and tags
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 27 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2991 tokens
- low 13 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 132: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 27 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.