DB context-save
Save working context. (gstack)
Save working context.
As a process B 72/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, execution cost
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
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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: Bash Read Write Glob Grep AskUserQuestion
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-shortdescription under 40 chars: too little signal for triggering - warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 9838 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "preamble-tier" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 480): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions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
- 30When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 10 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 9838 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 59 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 12 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 23 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (10 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)
- +3Description length 30: 120–800 characters recommended
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 35 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 59 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (17 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 47.