BF entra-app-registration
Guides Microsoft Entra ID app registration, OAuth 2.0 authentication, and MSAL integration. USE FOR: create app registration, register Azure AD app, configure OAuth, set up authentication, add API permissions, generate service principal, MSAL example, console app auth, Entra ID setup, Azure AD authentication. DO NOT USE FOR: Key Vault secrets (use azure-keyvault-expiration-audit), general Azure resource security guidance.
Guides Microsoft Entra ID app registration, OAuth 2.0 authentication, and MSAL integration. USE FOR: create app registration, register Azure AD app, configure…
As a process F 30/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: references/BICEP-EXAMPLE.bicep
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 Secrets in code
secret-password-literalreferences/first-app-registration.md:166Hard-coded password / key literal (may be an example)CLIENT_SECRET="abc123~defG…STU"
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenreferences/oauth-flows.md:239High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)"device_code": "GMMh…9E8",
quoted
Files scanned: 16. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/BICEP-EXAMPLE.bicep
Process rating: all ten parameters 30/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: references/BICEP-EXAMPLE.bicep
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 12 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Steps. 44 steps, 4 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1920 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
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
- +4No input/output examples
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 425: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 44 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 7)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.