BF project-review-council
世界级项目评审委员会。Use when 用户需要项目审计、项目评审、项目复盘、项目诊断、技术评审、投资评审、商业评估、项目风险分析、Red Team、项目 Go/No-Go 决策、上线前评审、季度复盘、项目体检、投后复盘、竞品对比评审。20 角色委员会从战略/技术/产品/安全/增长/财务/竞争等维度独立审计，交叉对抗验证后输出基于证据的可执行决议。触发词：项目审计、项目评审、评审委员会、项目复盘、项目诊断、技术评审、投资评审、项目体检、Go/NoGo、Red Team、项目会诊。
世界级项目评审委员会。Use when 用户需要项目审计、项目评审、项目复盘、项目诊断、技术评审、投资评审、商业评估、项目风险分析、Red Team、项目 Go/No-Go 决策、上线前评审、季度复盘、项目体检、投后复盘、竞品对比评审。20…
As a process F 35/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: roles/, templates/, examples/
How to improve
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityrubrics/decision-matrix.md:29Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- 若 Red Team 成立论据 > Blue Team 成立论据的 1.5 倍 → 决议降级（继续→暂停）
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityskill-card.md:20Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)Risk: Adversarial, competitor, or Red Team review prompts could be framed as instructions to target real third parties or systems. <br>
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:3Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)description: 世界级项目评审委员会。Use when 用户需要项目审计、项目评审、项目复盘、项目诊断、技术评审、投资评审、商业评估、项目风险分析、Red Team、项目 Go/No-Go 决策、上线前评审、季度复盘、项目体检、投后复盘、竞品对比评审。20 角色委员会从战略/技术/产品/安全/增长/财务/竞争等维度独立审计，交叉对抗验证后输出基于证据的可执行决议。触发词：项目审计、项目评
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: roles/
Process rating: all ten parameters 35/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: roles/, templates/, examples/
- 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
- 100Steps. 10 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 706 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- -216 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 242: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 11 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 10 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.