BB audit-permissions
Audits existing table permissions on a Power Pages site by analyzing them against site code and Dataverse metadata. Generates an HTML audit report with findings grouped by severity (critical, warning, info, pass) and suggests fixes for issues found. Use when the user wants to review, verify, or check table permissions for security issues.
Audits existing table permissions on a Power Pages site by analyzing them against site code and Dataverse metadata.
As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, 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
- 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 Bash Glob Grep AskUserQuestion TaskCreate TaskUpdate TaskList Agent
Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6828 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 71/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6828 tokens
- 85Steps. 179 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 6 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
- 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
- -31 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 340: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 28 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 179 items
- +4Has examples (11 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.