BC coq
Develops and checks proofs in Coq and its renamed successor Rocq, covering the `_CoqProject` and `coq_makefile` (or `rocq makefile`) build, `coqc` and `coqchk` (or `rocq compile` and `rocq check`), finding lemmas with `Search` and `SearchPattern`, choosing `Qed` versus `Defined` and `Opaque` versus `Transparent`, finishing without `Admitted`, auditing with `Print Assumptions`, and stating the exact proposition the informal claim makes. Use when asked to prove, formalize, check or repair a Coq or Rocq development; use lean4-mathlib for Lean, and ordinary mathematical writing for informal proofs.
Develops and checks proofs in Coq and its renamed successor Rocq, covering the CoqProject and coqmakefile (or rocq makefile) build, coqc and coqchk (or rocq…
As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, 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 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "summary" - 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edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 12): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions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
- 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
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 25 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1410 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 601: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 8 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 25 items
- +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.