BB edstem
Fetch, sync, and organize EdStem discussion threads for any course or institution. Use when checking for new EdStem posts, syncing course discussion forums, reviewing student/staff questions and answers, or when the user asks to check EdStem, review course discussions, or stay updated on class forums.
Fetch, sync, and organize EdStem discussion threads for any course or institution.
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, 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 instructions or scripts send data out: environment variables, keys, file contents, chat history. You may never notice, because the agent performs the upload as "part of the task".
If the upload is not needed for the task, remove it: catalogs flag such skills and delist them. If it is needed, name the destination explicitly, say what leaves the machine, and give the user a switch.
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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/fetch-edstem.sh:27Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $ED_TOKEN" \
-
medium Exfiltration
net-credential-usescripts/fetch-edstem.sh:36Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service)curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $ED_TOKEN" \
Files scanned: 7. 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 68/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 39 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1454 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 12 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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)
- -4Absolute local paths (C:\Users, /home/…): not portable
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 302: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 22 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 39 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 86.