BD technical-blog-writing
Technical blog post writing with structure, code examples, and developer audience conventions. Covers post types, code formatting, explanation depth, and developer-specific engagement patterns. Use for: engineering blogs, dev tutorials, technical writing, developer content, documentation posts. Triggers: technical blog, dev blog, engineering blog, technical writing, developer tutorial, tech post, code tutorial, programming blog, developer content, technical article, engineering post, coding tutorial, technical content
Technical blog post writing with structure, code examples, and developer audience conventions.
As a process D 43/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: steps, result and completion, when it triggers
What is at stake
The skill contains fragments that, in the wrong hands, cost money or data. Below: what the installer risks and what the author should do.
The skill contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Address the high-severity findings: each costs 18 safety points. If one is a false positive, add the rule id to guard.allow in spec.yaml.
- 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
-
high Dangerous commands
cmd-pipe-to-shellSKILL.md:14Downloads and executes remote code from an unrecognised host (pipe to shell)curl -fsSL https://cli.inference.sh | sh && infsh login
Files scanned: 1. 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 43/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3033 tokens
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)
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 523: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 24 headings
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.