CB code-review
Review changed code for naming, stale references, unnecessary complexity, and comment quality. Use after completing implementation work, before committing, or when the user asks to review or audit code.
Review changed code for naming, stale references, unnecessary complexity, and comment quality.
As a process B 72/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion
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
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 Glob Bash
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5489 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 14, 51): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 72/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5489 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 103 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 27 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- high The skill tells the model to perform an irreversible action with no human approval
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
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 202: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 103 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.