BC fund-analyzer-pro
[何时使用]当用户需要基金深度分析时;当用户说"分析这个基金""基金对比""基金诊断""基金经理分析"时;当检测到基金代码/基金名称/投顾策略时触发。整合天天基金 API+ 且慢 MCP,提供单一基金分析/基金比较/基金诊断/持仓诊断/基金经理/机会分析/投资方式/报告信号八大模块。新增信号监控提醒功能(signal_checker.py),支持季报/经理/规模/波动/风格/买卖信号自动推送。
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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-shell-rcreferences/data-sources-guide.md:41Writes to a shell startup fileecho 'export TTFUND_APIKEY="ttf_sk_live_xxx"' >> ~/.bashrc
Files scanned: 30. 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") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "created" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "skill_type" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "related_skills" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "data_sources"
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 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
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 104 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2118 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 13 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
- -244 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- -36 of 7 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 2 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 198: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 47 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 104 items
- +4Has examples (18 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 73.