BF gpt-web-chat-skill
ChatGPT 网页版自动化技能。用于通过浏览器自动化操作 chatgpt.com，包括发送 Prompt、获取回复、检测登录状态、维护会话。典型请求包括："帮我问 ChatGPT"、"用 GPT 回答"、"把这段话发给 ChatGPT"。如果只是询问 ChatGPT 的功能、模型、API、价格或使用方法，而不需要实际操作 ChatGPT 网页，则不要使用本 Skill。
ChatGPT 网页版自动化技能。用于通过浏览器自动化操作 chatgpt.com，包括发送 Prompt、获取回复、检测登录状态、维护会话。典型请求包括："帮我问 ChatGPT"、"用 GPT 回答"、"把这段话发给 ChatGPT"。如果只是询问 ChatGPT…
As a process F 33/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: scripts/chat.py, scripts/bootstrap.py, references/chatgpt.md
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: references/chatgpt.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/architecture.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/maintenance.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/chat.py, scripts/bootstrap.py, references/chatgpt.md
- 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
- 100Steps. 7 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 694 tokens
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 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 187: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 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.