BC tempo
Designing scheduling and time-aware logic for cron, timezone/DST, retry/backoff, and business-calendar systems. Use when schedule design is needed.
Designing scheduling and time-aware logic for cron, timezone/DST, retry/backoff, and business-calendar systems.
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: 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 contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
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 Dangerous commands
cmd-persistencereference/cron-patterns.md:77Persistence mechanism (cron / launchd / scheduled task / autorun registry) (documentation table row)| `@reboot` | at startup | Unix only, NOT in K8s or GHA |
table
Files scanned: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5727 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 149, 169): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5727 tokens
- 100Steps. 97 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 23 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 147: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 31 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 97 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (8 of 8)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.