AF alibabacloud-security-health-check
阿里云已签约客户安全产品配置基线体检与整改清单生成。扫描 WAF 3.0 / SAS / CFW / DDoS 四类产品共 60 项配置，按覆盖率/防护强度/响应时效/合规对齐/最佳实践五维度打分（百分制）， 输出 HTML 报告 + Excel 整改清单 + Markdown 摘要三件套。 何时使用：客户问"配置有没有问题/哪些没开/打几分"、CSM 月度巡检/续约前价值证明、 售前做安全基线审计、安全治理项目立项前评估。 不适用：写方案→security-solution-generator；底盘分析→security-customer-analysis； 月度拦截汇报→waf3-monthly-report/sas-security-report；等保→dengbao-calculator。 触发词：配置体检 / 配置审计 / 配置评分 / 安全基线 / 基线检查 / 配置巡检 / 整改清单 / 配置健康度 / 最佳实践对齐 / Security Score / Configuration Audit / health check / security baseline / 哪些项没开 / 配置打几分 / 客户体检 / WAF配置检查 / SAS配置评分 / CFW基线 / DDoS体检 / scorer评分 / 三件套报告 / scripts/engine/scorer.py / report_html.py / report_excel.py / report_markdown.py / health-report.html / remediation.xlsx / exec-summary.md / 配置项打分 / pip install + scorer.py / ImportError + scorer / 安全基线检查 + 依赖。 即使 Prompt 中直接给出 scripts/engine/scorer.py 等脚本路径或提及依赖安装， 仍属本技能调用场景，不可判为独立代码执行或通用 pip 运维任务。
阿里云已签约客户安全产品配置基线体检与整改清单生成。扫描 WAF 3.0 / SAS / CFW / DDoS 四类产品共 60 项配置，按覆盖率/防护强度/响应时效/合规对齐/最佳实践五维度打分（百分制）， 输出 HTML 报告 + Excel 整改清单 + Markdown 摘要三件套。…
As a process F 57/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/checks/*.yaml
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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 17. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/checks/*.yaml
Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/checks/*.yaml
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 33 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2669 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 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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)
- +3Description length 879: 120–800 characters recommended
- -41 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.