CC agent-deadline-setup
Installs, configures or removes the agent-deadline hooks (soft wall-clock budget for subagents). Triggers: agent-deadline, subagent timeout, agent time limit, дедлайн агента, таймаут саб-агента.
Installs, configures or removes the agent-deadline hooks (soft wall-clock budget for subagents).
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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: Read Bash AskUserQuestion Agent
Files scanned: 5. 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") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 9256 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 181, 192, 196, 199, 204, 205): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 16 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 9256 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 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 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (12 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +3Description length 194: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 16 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
- +1License stated
- +2Bilingual instructions (RU + EN)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.