BF arc4plus1
软件架构4+1视图自动生成器。当用户表达"生成架构视图"、"4+1视图"、"软件架构分析"、"4+1架构视图"、"软件架构文档"、"架构4+1"或类似表达时触发此技能。给定代码文件或工程目录，自动分析并生成 5 个视图（逻辑/过程/物理/开发/场景）+ README 文档，全部使用 Mermaid 图渲染。
软件架构4+1视图自动生成器。当用户表达"生成架构视图"、"4+1视图"、"软件架构分析"、"4+1架构视图"、"软件架构文档"、"架构4+1"或类似表达时触发此技能。给定代码文件或工程目录，自动分析并生成 5 个视图（逻辑/过程/物理/开发/场景）+ README 文档，全部使用 Mermaid 图渲染。
As a process F 31/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: 01_logical_view.md, 02_process_view.md, 03_physical_view.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 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 Glob Grep Write Edit
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") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6759 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: 01_logical_view.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: 02_process_view.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: 03_physical_view.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: 04_development_view.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: 05_scenario_view.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 31/100
- 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: 01_logical_view.md, 02_process_view.md, 03_physical_view.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. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6759 tokens
- 100Steps. 120 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 154: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 32 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 120 items
- +4Has examples (15 code blocks)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 59.