CB deploy
GitHub Actions deployment: workflows, releases, GHCR, CI/CD with safety gates. Triggers: deploy, release, workflow.
GitHub Actions deployment: workflows, releases, GHCR, CI/CD with safety gates.
As a process B 74/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, running it twice
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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Agent AskUserQuestion Glob Grep
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvreferences/workflow-templates.md:343Reads a .env fileif [ -f .env ]; then HAD_ENV=true; cp .env .env.bak; fi
-
low Exfiltration
read-dotenvreferences/workflow-templates.md:347Reads a .env filecp .env.bak .env
Files scanned: 10. 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 ≈ 6131 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 74/100
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 53 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6131 tokens
- 75Steps. 3 steps
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 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 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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 115: 120–800 characters recommended
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 57 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 3 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (40 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +3All 4 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.