CC infra-watchdog
(no description)
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers
How to improve
- Add a description to the frontmatter: without it the skill never triggers.
For the model run — optional
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- error
frontmatterSKILL.md: no YAML frontmatter block found - error
name-missingSKILL.md: frontmatter has no `name` - error
description-missingSKILL.md: no `description` — the skill can never trigger
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1032 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 10 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)
- +3Description length 0: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 0.
External checks
ClawHub: suspicious
This infrastructure monitor appears aligned with its purpose, but it needs Review because its HTTPS checks are reported to disable certificate verification and its alerts can send infrastructure details to third-party chat services.
LLM: suspicious (medium) · VirusTotal: suspicious · 28 May 2026