CC paper-talk
End-to-end conference talk pipeline: paper → slide outline → Beamer + PPTX → per-page polish → assurance checks (claim / citation / anonymity) → final export and report. Default-good for academic conference talks (NeurIPS / ICML / ICLR / VALSE / 投稿 talks). Trigger phrases: "做 talk", "做 PPT 全流程", "talk pipeline", "end-to-end slides", "做演讲", "conference talk full workflow". Use when the user wants the complete talk artifact, not just a slide deck.
End-to-end conference talk pipeline: paper → slide outline → Beamer + PPTX → per-page polish → assurance checks (claim / citation / anonymity) → final export…
As a process C 65/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
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: Bash(*)allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Write Edit Grep Glob Skill mcp__codex__codex
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5079 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 65/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Failures and branches. 2 branches
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5079 tokens
- 85Steps. 81 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 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)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 449: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 81 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.