AC find-ai-consultancy
Use whenever the user wants to find, shortlist, vet, or enrich US AI/ML/data consulting firms (consultancies) — AI/ML development, MLOps, generative AI / LLM apps (RAG, chatbots, agents), computer vision, NLP, recommendation systems, data engineering, BI/analytics. Triggers on "find an AI/ML consulting firm to build our recommendation engine", "shortlist three RAG/LLM consultancies for an enterprise chatbot", "compare three AI/ML consulting firms with strong ratings", or "pull contact info for these 8 AI consultancy domains", even when described indirectly (we want to use AI for X, deploy ML to production). Drives the ServiceGraph API (api.servicegraph.co) — a 100k+ US firm catalog filterable by industry, services, location, size, ratings. Defer to find-software-developer for general app/backend work where AI is just a feature. Skip in-house ML/data hires, LLM/AI-tool comparisons (ChatGPT vs Claude), "how do I fine-tune X" DIY questions, AI courses for individuals, non-US firms, individual freelancers.
Use whenever the user wants to find, shortlist, vet, or enrich US AI/ML/data consulting firms (consultancies) — AI/ML development, MLOps, generative AI / LLM…
As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
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 instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
How to improve
- 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 Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:84Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -sS -H "Authorization: Bearer $SERVICEGRAPH_API_KEY" \
Files scanned: 2. 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 54/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 9 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 25 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2939 tokens
- low 11 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)
- +3Description length 1017: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 21 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.