BC team-builder
Designs high-performing team structures using organizational psychology AND creates new skills on-the-fly when team needs unmet expertise. Expert in team composition, personality balancing, collaboration ritual design, and skill creation for missing capabilities. Use for team design, role definition, skill gap identification. Activates on 'team building', 'team composition', 'skills needed', 'what skills'. NOT for general project management or solo work planning.
Designs high-performing team structures using organizational psychology AND creates new skills on-the-fly when team needs unmet expertise.
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
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
- 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 Grep Glob
Files scanned: 2. 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 60/100
- 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. 11 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 156 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2708 tokens
- low 12 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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -215 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 467: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 46 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 156 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.