BC create-leader
Create a leader AI skill, distill leadership style from workplace data, simulate leader decision-making, provide upward management advice, plan career advancement paths, help understand how to replace a leader, analyze leader weaknesses, build leadership capabilities, career strategy, promotion planning, boss simulation, manager skill creation, leadership analysis, upward communication guidance, career development, workplace strategy | 创建领导AI技能，从职场数据中蒸馏领导风格，模拟领导决策，提供向上管理建议，规划职业发展路径，帮助理解如何取代领导，分析领导弱点，构建领导能力，职业策略，晋升规划，老板模拟，经理技能创建，领导力分析，向上沟通指导，职业发展，职场策略，怎么和领导相处，怎么搞定老板，如何替代领导，怎么取代上级，领导模拟器，老板模拟器，创建领导skill，领导skill生成器，向上管理助手，取代路径规划
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, 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 skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
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 Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash
Files scanned: 17. 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 61/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 18 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (create-leader) differs from the folder (leader-skill)
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 188 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3769 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 632: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 34 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 188 items
- +4Has examples (20 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.