AB gmail-auto-draft
Monitor Gmail inbox, read incoming emails, generate personalized follow-up replies with OpenAI, and save replies into Gmail Drafts for human review. Use when the user wants Gmail auto-monitoring, AI-assisted client email responses, draft-before-send workflows, or agency inbox automation.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, 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 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
- 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-redirectable-api-keyscripts/gmail_auto_draft.py:331Helper sends the API key to a host configured by an environment variable — the key can be redirected to another serverAPI key + configurable base URL from environment
Files scanned: 12. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 30 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 630 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)
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 288: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 3)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.