BC analytical-method-validation
Plan, execute, and document validation, verification, and transfer of analytical procedures under the governing framework - ICH Q2(R2) and Q14, USP <1220>/<1225>/<1226>, ICH M10 bioanalytical, CLSI EP, or ISO/IEC 17025. Use for HPLC, LC-MS/MS, GC, CE, ICP-MS, dissolution, qNMR, qPCR, NIR, and ligand binding or cell-based assays whenever the question is whether a procedure is fit for its intended purpose. Triggers include "method validation", "analytical method validation", "AMV", "validation protocol", "acceptance criteria", "linearity", "reportable range", "accuracy and precision", "repeatability", "intermediate precision", "recovery", "LOD", "LOQ", "detection limit", "quantitation limit", "specificity", "robustness", "method transfer", "method comparison", "Deming", "Passing-Bablok", "Bland-Altman", "equivalence testing", "OOS investigation", "ICH Q2", "Q2(R2)", "Q14", "USP 1225", "ICH M10", "incurred sample reanalysis", "ISR", "CLSI EP", and any request to show that an assay works.
Plan, execute, and document validation, verification, and transfer of analytical procedures under the governing framework - ICH Q2(R2) and Q14, USP…
As a process C 64/100 · 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: 17. 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 64/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 19 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3904 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 11 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 999: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -32 of 8 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 27 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 19 items
- +4Has examples (14 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.