BC code-delegate-tool-pro
在需要code delegate tool相关能力的开发场景,提供结构化工作流程和配置说明. 该工具经过深度优化,基于用户反馈改进了实用性和可操作性。适用于独立开发者、企业团队和自动化工作流场景，提供结构化输出与错误处理机制，支持中文交互，即开即用。适用于独立开发者、企业团队和自动化工作流场景，提供结构化输出与错误处理机制，支持中文交互，即开即用
在需要code delegate tool相关能力的开发场景,提供结构化工作流程和配置说明.
As a process C 53/100 · 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 skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- For Hermes the description must be one sentence under 60 characters; move the conditions to a "When to Use" section.
- 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 Dangerous commands
cmd-persistenceSKILL.md:75Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"LaunchAgents/",
quoted
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 174 chars; the Hermes authoring standard requires ≤ 60 (one sentence, ending with a period) - warning
description-no-whenneither description nor a "## When to Use" section says when to use the skill - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "slug" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "displayName" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "tools" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "pricing_tier"
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 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
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 46 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3007 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 24 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 174: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 58 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 46 items
- +4Has examples (17 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 64.