BB semgrep-rule-creator
Creates custom Semgrep rules for detecting security vulnerabilities, bug patterns, and code patterns. Use when writing Semgrep rules or building custom static analysis detections.
Creates custom Semgrep rules for detecting security vulnerabilities, bug patterns, and code patterns.
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice
The same skill appears in 2 more places: agentic-awesome-skills, agentic-awesome-skills
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
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Bash Read Write Edit Glob Grep WebFetch
A further 1 matches are quotations in this security skill's documentation and are not counted as findings.
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "risk" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "source" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "date_added"
Process rating: all ten parameters 68/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 33 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1729 tokens
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (8 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 179: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 33 items
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.