AC repomix-safe-mixer
Safely package codebases with repomix by automatically detecting and removing hardcoded credentials before packing. Use when packaging code for distribution, creating reference packages, or when the user mentions security concerns about sharing code with repomix.
Safely package codebases with repomix by automatically detecting and removing hardcoded credentials before packing.
As a process C 54/100 · 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 files contain someone else's key or token. If it is live, your agent will call third-party services under a stranger's identity; if it was revoked, the skill's scripts simply fail. Such a key often arrives with the author's whole workspace, personal data included.
The key is visible to everyone who downloaded the skill and has likely been copied by catalog-scanning bots already. Revoke it now, check bills and access logs, then reissue.
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 Secrets in code
secret-private-keySKILL.md:138Private key material (key header without key body; quoted — discussed, not commanded)- Private Keys (`-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- …
header onlyquoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-aws-keyreferences/common_secrets.md:21AWS access key ID (placeholder value)- Example: `AKIA…PLE`
placeholder
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 54/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 41 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1879 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- 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
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 263: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 41 items
- +4Has examples (23 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.