CC autoreview
Structured Codex, Claude, Amp, Pi, or Kimi code review when explicitly requested.
Structured Codex, Claude, Amp, Pi, or Kimi code review when explicitly requested.
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, 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 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
- 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 Exfiltration
net-redirectable-api-keytests/test_autoreview_hardening.py:2998Helper sends the API key to a host configured by an environment variable — the key can be redirected to another serverAPI key + configurable base URL from environment
Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 9913 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 184, 332): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 37 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 9913 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 52 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (11 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)
- +3Description length 81: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -32 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 13 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 52 items
- +4Has examples (20 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 68.