AB windows-remote-desktop-connection-doctor
Diagnose Windows App (Microsoft Remote Desktop / Azure Virtual Desktop / W365 / direct PC) connection issues on macOS. Analyze transport protocol selection (UDP Shortpath vs WebSocket), detect VPN/proxy interference, parse Windows App logs for Shortpath failures, and resolve stuck "Configuring remote PC..." dialogs caused by expired Microsoft accounts, server reboots, or client-side auth poisoning. Use when VDI connections are slow or stuck, when direct PC connections fail to connect, when transport shows WebSocket instead of UDP, when RDP Shortpath fails, or when Windows App is frozen at a progress dialog.
Diagnose Windows App (Microsoft Remote Desktop / Azure Virtual Desktop / W365 / direct PC) connection issues on macOS.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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 Grep Bash
Files scanned: 5. 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 40 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3838 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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 614: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 40 items
- +4Has examples (12 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 1 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.