BC paper-poster-html
DEFAULT poster pipeline — build an academic conference poster (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR/CVPR/...) as a single HTML/CSS file with measurement-driven hard gates, real paper figures, a two-hue design-token system, and print-ready PDF via headless Chromium. Use when the user says "做海报", "poster", "conference poster", "paper poster", or asks to design/redo a research poster.
DEFAULT poster pipeline — build an academic conference poster (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR/CVPR/...) as a single HTML/CSS file with measurement-driven hard gates, real…
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
The same skill appears in 1 more place: Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
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: Bash(*)allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Write Edit Grep Glob mcp__gemini-review__review mcp__gemini-review__review_start mcp__gemini-review__review_reply_start mcp__gemini-review__review_status
Files scanned: 1. 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 61/100
- 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
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 4 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1102 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 365: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 5 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 4 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.