AA scan-code
Scans a Power Pages site project for security issues in source code and dependencies. Runs static analysis and dependency scanning, then surfaces findings by category (code patterns, vulnerable packages, secrets, license issues). Use when the user wants to review code for security problems, check for vulnerable packages, find hard-coded secrets, run a code scan, or asks "is my code safe?", "check my dependencies", "find security issues in my source" — even if they say "audit my code" without mentioning specific tools.
Scans a Power Pages site project for security issues in source code and dependencies.
As a process A 81/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: result and completion, 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
- 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
Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 81/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 85Steps. 25 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 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. 3 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3201 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (8 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 523: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
- +3All 4 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.