BC code-review
AI-powered code review using Gemini. Reviews entire projects, catches bugs, suggests fixes, and helps debug.
AI-powered code review using Gemini.
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, consistency
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 files contain someone else's key or token. If it is live, your agent will call third-party services under a stranger's identity; if it was revoked, the skill's scripts simply fail. Such a key often arrives with the author's whole workspace, personal data included.
The key is visible to everyone who downloaded the skill and has likely been copied by catalog-scanning bots already. Revoke it now, check bills and access logs, then reissue.
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Secrets in code
secret-google-keyscripts/code_review.py:8Google API key (quoted — discussed, not commanded)GEMINI_API_KEY = os.environ.get("GEMINI_API_KEY", "AIza…tz0")quoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/code_review.py:8High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)GEMINI_API_KEY = os.environ.get("GEMINI_API_KEY", "AIza…tz0")quoted
Files scanned: 3. 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
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (code-review) differs from the folder (bud-code-review)
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 13 steps
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 480 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)
- +3Description length 108: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -31 of 1 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 13 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 66.