CC trader-portfolio-cg
Mean-variance portfolio optimization via Conjugate Gradient — 40-60× faster than the legacy Neumann path (ADR-126 Phase 3, ADR-123 Wedge 8)
Mean-variance portfolio optimization via Conjugate Gradient — 40-60× faster than the legacy Neumann path (ADR-126 Phase 3, ADR-123 Wedge 8)
As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, 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
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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: Bash Read mcp__ruflo-sublinear__solve mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_store mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_retrieve mcp__plugin_ruflo-core_ruflo__memory_search mcp__plugin_ru
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 1, 4, 10, 66, 102): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 64/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 18 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1566 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- +4Structure: 0 headings, hard to scan
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5Long text without headings
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 139: enough signal without eating the budget
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 18 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 63.