BC startup-problem-finder
Locate clarity gaps, business-model breaks, fundraising-story gaps, pitch-deck blockers, and likely investor questions in idea-stage through Series A startups. Use for founder-side review of a startup idea, pitch deck, fundraising material, VC-lens request, investor-meeting preparation, or funding-path fit. Review available material, ask one material-grounded intake round, then diagnose problems and evidence gaps without making an invest-or-pass decision.
Locate clarity gaps, business-model breaks, fundraising-story gaps, pitch-deck blockers, and likely investor questions in idea-stage through Series A startups.
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- 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
-
high Concealment
en-hide-from-userreferences/funding-path-map.md:80Instruction to hide actions from the userqueries. Do not tell the user which transaction to accept.
Files scanned: 16. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
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
- 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
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 89 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3013 tokens
- low 12 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +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
- +3Description length 459: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 89 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (11 of 11)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.