CC afrexai-business-automation
Turn your AI agent into a business automation architect. Design, document, implement, and monitor... 核心能力: - 效率工具领域的专业化AI辅助工具 - 基于高人气开源Skill深度优化升级 - 移除风险代码,增强安全性和稳定性 适用场景: - 工作流自动化、任务调度、批处理 - 独立开发者与一人公司效率提升 - 自动化工作流与智能决策辅助 差异化:经过深度优化,去除原始风险代码,清理外部依赖引用,增强元数据和触发关键词,完全适配SkillHub平台规范。 触发关键词: turn, architect, automation, business, agent, afrexai
Turn your AI agent into a business automation architect.
As a process C 52/100 · 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 instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
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 Exfiltration
net-credential-useSKILL.md:347Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)DATA=$(curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $API_TOKEN" \
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") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "slug" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "displayName" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools"
Process rating: all ten parameters 52/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4366 tokens
- 85Steps. 40 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 352: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 39 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +4Has examples (18 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.