BB agent-tui
Main Agents: Do NOT use this skill directly. If you need to test the TUI, invoke the `tui_tester` subagent. Drive terminal UI (TUI) applications programmatically for testing, automation, and inspection. Use when: automating CLI/TUI interactions, regression testing terminal apps, or verifying interactive behavior. Also use when: user asks "what is agent-tui", "what does agent-tui do", "demo agent-tui", "show me agent-tui", "how does agent-tui work", or wants to see it in action.
Main Agents: Do NOT use this skill directly.
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting
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 contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
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 Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shell-known-hostSKILL.md:68Pipe-to-shell installer from a well-known host (still executes remote code)curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pproenca/agent-tui/master/install.sh | sh
Files scanned: 1. 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 68/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 26 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3052 tokens
- low 13 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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 482: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
- +4Has examples (15 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.