BF wb-buddy-checkin
自动完成 WorkBuddy 桌面客户端「Buddy 加油站」每日签到、领取积分。当用户需要在 Windows 上自动点击头像→Buddy加油站→立即领取，并通过截图灰度校验是否成功（灰底「今日已领」）时使用。基于纯 ctypes 实现窗口置前、坐标点击与窗口截图，零第三方 Python 依赖，仅依赖 Windows 系统 API（可选复用 desktop-control-win skill 的截图）。
自动完成 WorkBuddy 桌面客户端「Buddy 加油站」每日签到、领取积分。当用户需要在 Windows 上自动点击头像→Buddy加油站→立即领取，并通过截图灰度校验是否成功（灰底「今日已领」）时使用。基于纯 ctypes 实现窗口置前、坐标点击与窗口截图，零第三方 Python 依赖，仅依赖…
As a process F 33/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: scripts/checkin_state.json
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.
- 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 Dangerous commands
cmd-persistenceSKILL.md:119Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- **续签载体 = Windows 计划任务（关键，2026-08-17 老板质疑后修复）**：WorkBuddy 重启时，运行在它进程内的 agent 会话会**连带终止**——「等几分钟重跑」这类会话内逻辑不可靠。正确做法：脚本点「重启升级」后先 `schedule_resume_task()` 用 `schtasks /create` 注册 **8 分钟后**的 `-resume` 计划任
quoted
Files scanned: 6. 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
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/checkin_state.json - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "agent_created"
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/checkin_state.json
- 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. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Steps. 29 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1905 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 203: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 11 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 29 items
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.