CC deliverable-intake
Turns raw captures, dictated braindumps in a deliverable’s inbox/, or recent macwhspr dictation-log entries into proposed planning-wiki changes, shown as a unified diff for author acceptance or rejection. Classifies every capture line as a decision, evidence claim, question, task, or dropped item with a reason, and traces it to its source. Uncertain names and citations remain UNRESOLVED. Applies decisions only with explicit assent. Use when the user says "intake", "absorb my notes", "process the inbox", "I dictated something", or after notes from a talk, meeting, or reading session. Never edits source files, only planning/ and open questions.
Turns raw captures, dictated braindumps in a deliverable’s inbox/, or recent macwhspr dictation-log entries into proposed planning-wiki changes, shown as a…
As a process C 57/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../../../docs/deliverable-pipeline.md
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
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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 Glob Grep Bash Write Edit AskUserQuestion
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../../docs/deliverable-pipeline.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 57/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../../docs/deliverable-pipeline.md
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 6 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1146 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
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
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 650: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 6 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.