CB preservation-verifier
Use when the user provides an original and rewritten version, asks whether a rewrite preserved protected content, or wants a deterministic check for code, frontmatter, quotes, tables, links, paths, numbers, headings, and residual AI-pattern regressions.
Use when the user provides an original and rewritten version, asks whether a rewrite preserved protected content, or wants a deterministic check for code…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
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 files contain invisible characters, encoded commands or comments hidden from readers but visible to the model. What you read differs from what the agent sees.
Remove invisible characters (they usually sneak in through copy-paste) and encoded strings: no catalog will pass them. Instructions for the model must be readable by a human too.
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Obfuscation
uni-zero-widthscripts/patterns.js:72Zero-width / invisible characters (possible hidden text) (8 occurrences)const ZERO_WIDTH_RE = /[␀-␀␀␀]/u;
-
medium Obfuscation
uni-mixed-script-wordscripts/patterns.js:141Word mixing Latin and Cyrillic letters (homoglyph obfuscation) (2 occurrences)// - mixed-script words ("pаypal", "dеlve"), anywhere;
Files scanned: 4. 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 67/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 16 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1657 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- -31 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 253: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 85.