BD wb-safe-team
WorkBuddy 安全稳定运行专家团（WB-SAFE）——凭据、积分、连通、配置、加密、健康、风险、恢复八条防线一个团，守护 AI 工作台既安全又不掉线。对齐 NIST CSF 2.0 六职能与 ISO/IEC 27001。触发词：安全体检、凭据安全、Token 安全、积分省钱、连接器掉线、配置漂移、加密、密钥、系统卡死、OOM、灾备恢复、离线兜底、黄金包、备份。
WorkBuddy 安全稳定运行专家团（WB-SAFE）——凭据、积分、连通、配置、加密、健康、风险、恢复八条防线一个团，守护 AI 工作台既安全又不掉线。对齐 NIST CSF 2.0 六职能与 ISO/IEC 27001。触发词：安全体检、凭据安全、Token…
As a process D 46/100 · Unfinished process — 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-pipe-to-shell安全审计报告.md:52Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)- 不适用：未发现任何自动下载 + 执行远程脚本的模式（无 `curl | bash`、无 `wget | sh`、无远程 URL）。
quoted
Files scanned: 12. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-long-hermesdescription is 184 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 "title" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "displayName" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "agent_created"
Process rating: all ten parameters 46/100
- 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
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 47 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1030 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 11 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
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 184: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 47 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 4 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.