BC figure-spec
Generate deterministic publication-quality architecture, workflow, and pipeline diagrams from structured JSON (FigureSpec) into editable SVG. Use when user says "架构图", "workflow 图", "pipeline 图", "确定性矢量图", "figure spec", "draw architecture", or needs precise, editable, publication-ready vector diagrams. Preferred over AI illustration for formal architecture/workflow figures.
Generate deterministic publication-quality architecture, workflow, and pipeline diagrams from structured JSON (FigureSpec) into editable SVG.
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
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
- 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 mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__grok__grok-reply mcp__claude-review__review mcp__claude-review__review_rep
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 45, 53, 64): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 39 steps
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2800 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- low 10 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
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 377: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 23 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 39 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (7 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.