BF gemini-web-automation
当用户希望实际使用 Gemini 网页版完成一次对话时使用本 Skill，包括发送 Prompt、继续已有对话、上传图片或文件、获取 Gemini 回复以及恢复 Gemini 登录状态。典型请求包括："帮我问 Gemini"、"用 Gemini 回答"、"把这段话发给 Gemini"、"让 Gemini 看这张图片"、"继续 Gemini 对话"。如果只是询问 Gemini 的功能、模型、API、价格或使用方法，而不需要实际操作 Gemini 网页，则不要使用本 Skill。
当用户希望实际使用 Gemini 网页版完成一次对话时使用本 Skill，包括发送 Prompt、继续已有对话、上传图片或文件、获取 Gemini 回复以及恢复 Gemini 登录状态。典型请求包括："帮我问 Gemini"、"用 Gemini 回答"、"把这段话发给 Gemini"、"让 Gemini…
As a process F 28/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: scripts/chat.py, scripts/bootstrap.py, scripts/analyze_page.py
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
- 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 · 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: Read Write Edit Grep Glob Bash
Files scanned: 2. 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: scripts/chat.py - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/bootstrap.py - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/analyze_page.py - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/maintenance.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/architecture.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/gemini.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 28/100
- 0Tools and files. 6 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/chat.py, scripts/bootstrap.py, scripts/analyze_page.py
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (gemini-web-automation) differs from the folder (gemini-web-automation-skill)
- 100Steps. 7 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 740 tokens
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 240: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 7 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.