CC slides-polish
Per-page Codex review + targeted python-pptx / Beamer fixes for academic talk slides. Use AFTER /paper-slides (or any externally generated PPTX/Beamer) when the deck looks 'mostly OK' but the user wants a final pass that aligns visual weight with a reference, bumps PPTX fonts to projector-readable size, kills italic style leaks, fixes text-frame overflow, and catches per-slide layout drift. Trigger phrases: "polish slides", "slides 排版不对", "PPTX 字体太小", "和 Beamer 比一下", "per-page review", "和 codex 一页一页过".
Per-page Codex review + targeted python-pptx / Beamer fixes for academic talk slides.
As a process C 59/100 · 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 mcp__codex__codex mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__grok__grok-reply mcp__claude-review__review mc
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 7074 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7074 tokens
- 85Steps. 107 steps, 2 vague phrases
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 14 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (19 tags): a typed call is more reliable
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 6 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 507: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 33 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 107 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (8 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 76.