BF fireflies
Query Fireflies.ai meeting transcripts, meeting notes, summaries, contacts, channels, AI meeting analytics, AskFred, audio uploads, and webhook signatures through its GraphQL API. Use when a user mentions Fireflies, Fireflies.ai, meeting transcripts or notes stored in Fireflies, AskFred, or Fireflies webhooks. Do not use for local audio transcription, calendar management, or meetings that are not Fireflies data.
Query Fireflies.ai meeting transcripts, meeting notes, summaries, contacts, channels, AI meeting analytics, AskFred, audio uploads, and webhook signatures…
As a process F 41/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: scripts/fireflies
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
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: Bash Read
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/fireflies
Process rating: all ten parameters 41/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/fireflies
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 15 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 957 tokens
- medium 6 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 415: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 6 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 15 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.