CB cso
Security audit: supported static findings; qualified profiles add reproduction and repair candidates. (gstack)
The skill promises static security analysis with support for known vulnerabilities and, for qualified profiles, reproduction and repair candidates. Four files in the package, no linter errors. Code quality scores 68, process 65. No critical or high-risk findings, medium or low either. Never ran on models, untested in sandbox.
Shipped as "works, but"—safety maxed out, actual effectiveness unknown. If you need guaranteed audits, test it on your own examples first. Fine for experiments.
Security audit: supported static findings; qualified profiles add reproduction and repair candidates.
As a process B 65/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "triggers" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 157): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4425 tokens
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 7 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (8 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 110: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 7 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 68.