BB sec-edgar-api
Resolve a ticker to a CIK, then pull SEC EDGAR filer profiles, filings, XBRL financial concepts and full-text search across 2001-today. 6 endpoints, 1 credit each, structured JSON.
Resolve a ticker to a CIK, then pull SEC EDGAR filer profiles, filings, XBRL financial concepts and full-text search across 2001-today.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: 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 skill tells the agent to hide things from you: not to show errors, not to mention actions, to report differently from what was done. You lose the ability to see what the agent really did.
Transparency beats a smooth answer. If the goal is to hide technical noise, ask the agent to "summarise briefly", not to "not mention".
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 Concealment
en-hide-from-userSKILL.md:225Instruction to hide actions from the user (detector / deny-list definition)- EDGAR's "recent" block is **not a fixed window** - it can be a decade for a quiet filer and about a year for a prolific one. Never tell the user "this is everything" from a default `/filings` call;
detector
Files scanned: 2. 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 65/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 40 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3430 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- 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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 180: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.