BC jsp-936
Knowledge pack synthesized from JSP 936 Dependable Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Defence, Part 1: Directive, V1.1 (November 2024, Ministry of Defence, Open Government Licence v3.0): dependable-AI direction for Defence. SCOPE LIMITS: single-source (JSP 936 Part 1 V1.1); MOD policy, not statute; not the Defence SMS (use jsp-815) and not acquisition-safety policy (use jsp-376); Part 2 is not in this pack; no DEF-STAN text and no other JSP reproduced; reconstructed reference notes, not MOD guidance, and no official status.
Knowledge pack synthesized from JSP 936 Dependable Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Defence, Part 1: Directive, V1.1 (November 2024, Ministry of Defence, Open…
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitychapters/ch01-introduction.md:31Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)- In-scope examples named in the directive include object detection in ISR, reinforcement learning in command and control and autonomous systems, LLMs in HR applications, and AI in decision-support to
detector -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityglossary.md:13Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **C2 (Command and Control)**: application area named among in-scope examples, including reinforcement learning used in C2 and autonomous systems. → ch01, ch02
Files scanned: 13. 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 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 37 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2037 tokens
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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 526: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 37 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.