BC deliverable-open
Opens a deliverable, such as a talk, course module, paper, book chapter, or referee report, for AI-assisted work across sessions. Interviews the author until the manifest is written, then scaffolds deliverable.yml, append-only HANDOFF.md, a numbered planning/ wiki with index and open questions, inbox/ for dictated braindumps, gitignored checks/, and the house deck template for talks. Use when the user says "open a deliverable", "set up this talk/paper/module for the pipeline", "make a manifest", or starts deadline-driven work that spans sessions. Not for one-off tasks.
Opens a deliverable, such as a talk, course module, paper, book chapter, or referee report, for AI-assisted work across sessions.
As a process C 53/100 · 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 - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 12): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../../docs/deliverable-pipeline.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 10 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 30 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2097 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (5 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
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 575: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.