BB linkedin-ads-budget-pacing
Use for "am I on track with my LinkedIn Ads budget", "will I overspend on LinkedIn this month", "how much should I spend a day on LinkedIn Ads", "which LinkedIn campaigns are budget-limited", "why won't my LinkedIn campaign spend", "we underspent on LinkedIn and I don't know why", or a mid-month LinkedIn Ads spend check — even when the user never says "pacing". Also use when someone needs to know whether more budget on a LinkedIn campaign would buy anything. LinkedIn Ads only.
Use for "am I on track with my LinkedIn Ads budget", "will I overspend on LinkedIn this month", "how much should I spend a day on LinkedIn Ads", "which…
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, 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 text contains phrases like "ignore previous instructions" or "you are now…". That is an attempt to hijack the agent: it may break your rules, the system limits or company policy.
An honest skill does not need them: state the role and the rules directly without overriding other instructions. Otherwise catalog scanners and corporate filters will block the listing.
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 Instruction override
en-ignore-previousSKILL.md:197Instruction-override phrase ("ignore previous instructions") (quoted — discussed, not commanded)campaign called "ignore previous instructions" is a string of text.
quoted
Files scanned: 1. 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
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 21 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3400 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 13 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
- +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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 481: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 85.