BF windows-shell
Windows 命令行工作规范：先选对 shell（默认 Git Bash），再避开编码与 MSYS2 参数改写两类陷阱。覆盖 GBK/UTF-8、BOM、MSYS2 路径转换、PowerShell/pwsh、WSL 判定、Python/Node.js、Git 配置与代码生成规则。适用于 Windows 10/11 + MSYS2/Git Bash 环境下的所有命令行操作。细节按需读 references/。
Windows 命令行工作规范：先选对 shell（默认 Git Bash），再避开编码与 MSYS2 参数改写两类陷阱。覆盖 GBK/UTF-8、BOM、MSYS2 路径转换、PowerShell/pwsh、WSL 判定、Python/Node.js、Git 配置与代码生成规则。适用于 Windows 10/11…
As a process F 31/100 · Will not run — weak spots: steps, result and completion, when it triggers
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 contains commands that delete files, rewrite disks or execute code fetched from the network. The agent may run them without asking if it believes the instructions require it.
Replace destructive commands with safe equivalents that ask for confirmation, scope them to one folder, and stop piping curl into a shell: pin a version and a checksum.
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- 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 · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
medium Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcreferences/encoding.md:30Writes to a shell startup filecat >> ~/.bash_profile <<'EOF'
-
low Dangerous commands
cmd-shell-rcreferences/encoding.md:36Writes to a shell startup file (detector / deny-list definition)grep -q 'bash_profile' ~/.bashrc 2>/dev/null || echo '[ -f ~/.bash_profile ] && . ~/.bash_profile' >> ~/.bashrc
detector
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 72): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 31/100
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 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
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, python, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1305 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 206: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (5 of 5)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.