BA add-server-logic
Creates, edits, and manages Power Pages Server Logic files — server-side JavaScript that runs securely on the Power Pages runtime. Orchestrates the full lifecycle: gathering requirements, fetching documentation, implementing code, configuring site settings, and deploying. Use when the user wants to add server-side code, create API endpoints, or move logic from the browser to the server in their Power Pages site.
Creates, edits, and manages Power Pages Server Logic files — server-side JavaScript that runs securely on the Power Pages runtime.
As a process A 83/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: execution cost
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 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 Write Edit Bash Grep Glob AskUserQuestion Skill Task TaskCreate TaskUpdate TaskList mcp__plugin_power-pages_microsoft-learn__microsoft_docs_search mcp__plugin_power-pages_microsoft
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 17973 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 172): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 83/100
- 10Execution cost. Instruction body is 17973 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Steps. 166 steps, 12 vague phrases
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Failures and branches. 13 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 15 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (20 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)
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- -31 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 415: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 76 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 166 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (24 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 73.