BC deepseek-harness-desktop-shell
把已在本地运行的 DeepSeek Harness Web UI（默认 http://127.0.0.1:3080）用 Electron 包装成桌面应用的实战指南：前置依赖、最小可运行壳、启动 Harness 与加载本地 URL 的方式、打包分发。仅覆盖桌面套壳本身；Harness 的安装 / 构建 / 排错由 deepseek-harness-windows-deploy 技能负责。
把已在本地运行的 DeepSeek Harness Web UI（默认 http://127.0.0.1:3080）用 Electron 包装成桌面应用的实战指南：前置依赖、最小可运行壳、启动 Harness 与加载本地 URL 的方式、打包分发。仅覆盖桌面套壳本身；Harness 的安装 / 构建 / 排错由…
As a process C 51/100 · 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 asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Bash PowerShell WebFetch
Files scanned: 4. 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")
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 9 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 346 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
- +4No input/output examples
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 194: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 9 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.