BC pathogen-variant-surveillance
Query live pathogen genomic surveillance data through the GenSpectrum LAPIS API to find which viral lineages are circulating now, how fast they are growing, and what mutations they carry. Use whenever a question depends on the current state of a pathogen population rather than on remembered facts - which SARS-CoV-2 variant is dominant, whether a Pango lineage is still designated or has been withdrawn, what clade or genotype of H5N1 is in a host or region, whether a PCR primer or assay target still matches circulating sequence, or how a lineage's prevalence has moved week to week. Triggers include "variant surveillance", "genomic surveillance", "what variant is circulating", "dominant variant", "Pango lineage", "lineage prevalence", "growth advantage", "SARS-CoV-2 variant", "XFG", "clade 2.3.4.4b", "H5N1 genotype", "influenza clade", "RSV/mpox/measles/dengue lineage", "CoV-Spectrum", "LAPIS", "Nextclade", "pango-designation", and any request to report what a pathogen population looks like today.
Query live pathogen genomic surveillance data through the GenSpectrum LAPIS API to find which viral lineages are circulating now, how fast they are growing…
As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
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 · 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 Write Edit Bash
Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 6 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2697 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)
- +3Description length 1009: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -31 of 5 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 15 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 6 items
- +4Has examples (10 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.