CF research-grants
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, and DARPA. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, and DARPA.
As a process F 27/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: assets/biosketch_templates/
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
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: 11. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 8778 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: assets/biosketch_templates/
Process rating: all ten parameters 27/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: assets/biosketch_templates/
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 6 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8778 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Steps. 541 steps, 8 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- low 15 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 241: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 55 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 541 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.