BF playwright-stealth-verify
Check whether a Playwright, Puppeteer, Selenium or CDP-driven browser presents a coherent fingerprint, using liarjs as a library against a Page you already have - navigator.webdriver, HeadlessChrome tokens, worker versus main-thread identity, patched-API integrity, WebGL versus WebGPU GPU identity. Use when asked whether an automated browser looks like a normal one, when a headless setup or a stealth plugin's effect needs measuring rather than assuming, or when an assertion on fingerprint quality belongs in a test suite.
Check whether a Playwright, Puppeteer, Selenium or CDP-driven browser presents a coherent fingerprint, using liarjs as a library against a Page you already…
As a process F 31/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/checks.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
- 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 Edit Write
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checks.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 31/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/checks.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
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Steps. 2 steps
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1097 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 526: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.