BC overnight-worker
Autonomous overnight work agent — assign tasks before sleep, get structured results by morning. Supports smart task decomposition, web research, multi-format output, progress logging, error recovery, and push notifications. (中文) 夜间自主工作 Agent:智能任务拆解、多格式输出、进度日志、错误恢复、通知推送。
As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
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
- 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 Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Bash Read Write Edit Grep Glob WebSearch WebFetch Task Agent
-
low Exfiltration
exfil-webhook-urlscripts/notify.sh:75Webhook / callback URL commonly used for exfiltration (verify the destination) (placeholder value)-X POST "https://api.telegram.org/bot${TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN}/sendMessage" \placeholder
Files scanned: 7. 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
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "user_invocable"
Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 74 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1580 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low The response is described with custom markup (12 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 270: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 74 items
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +3All 2 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 74.